Skip to main content

Full text of "Women, violence, and the law : hearing before the Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families, House of Representatives, One Hundredth Congress, first session, hearing held in Washington, DC, September 16, 1987"

See other formats


WOMEN, VIOLENCE, AND THE LAW 



HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON 

CHILDREN, YOUTH, AND FAMILIES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDREDTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 



HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, SEPTEMBER 16, 1987 



Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families 




KF27. 5 
C48 

i 9S7M HI ^'^' GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1988 



ale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 
Washington, DC 20402 



/ 



WOMEN, VIOLENCE, AND THE LAW 



HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON 

CHILDREN, YOUTH, AND FAMILIES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATr\^S 

ONE HUNDREDTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 



HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, SEPTEMBER 16, 1987 



Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families 




KF27. 5 
C48 

< 9g7jw| ■■ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1988 



ale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing OfTice 
Washington, DC 20402 



SELECT COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN, YOUTH, AND FAMILIES 
GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman 



WILLIAM LEHMAN, Florida 
PATRICIA SCHROEDER, Colorado 
LINDY (MRS. HALE) BOGGS, Louisiana 
MATTHEW F. McHUGH, New York 
TED WEISS, New York 
BERYL ANTHONY, Jr.. Arkansas 
BARBARA BOXER, California 
SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan 
BRUCE A. MORRISON, Connecticut 
J. ROY ROWLAND, Georgia 
GERRY SIKORSKI, Minnesota 
ALAN WHEAT, I " 
MATTHEW G. M 
LANE EVANS, II 
RICHARD J. DU 
THOMAS C. SA\ 
DAVID E. SKAG 



DAN COATS, Indiana 
THOMAS J. BLILEY, Jr., Virginia 
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 
NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut 
BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada 
JACK F. KEMP, New York 
GEORGE C. WORTLEY, New York 
RON PACKARD, California 
BEAU BOULTER, Texas 
J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois 
CLYDE C. HOLLOW AY, Louisiana 
FRED GRANDY, Iowa 



lOMNIV 



f'oaceti.tiS 



^Beee 



^ 



BOSTOIM 

PUBLIC 

tlBIURY 



/ 



CONTENTS 



Page 

Hearing held in Washington, DC, on September 16, 1987 1 

Statement of: 

Ewing, Dr. Charles Patrick, associate professor of law and psychology, 

State University of New York, Buffalo, NY Ill 

Hart, Barbara, J., Esq., staff counsel, Pennsylvania Coalition Against 

Domestic Violence, Reading, PA 76 

Holtzman, Elizabeth, district attorney. Kings County, NY „ 29 

Martin, Sheila S., Washington, DC 16 

Lee, Rana, community education developer for Marin Abused Women 

Services, Novato, CA 5 

Pope, Det. Lt. Darrell H., commanding officer (retired), Sex Crime Unit, 

Michigan State Police, Pensacola, FL 143 

Sears, Alan E., former executive director, Attorney General's Commission 
on Pornography, legal counsel. Citizens for Decency Through Law, Inc., 

Scottsdale, AZ 49 

Walker, Lenore E., Ed.D., A.B.P.P., president and psychologist. Walker & 

Associates, Denver, CO 127 

Prepared statements, letters, supplemental materials, et cetera: 

Coats, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana, 

and ranking minority member, submitting a fact sheet 178 

Ewing, Dr. Charles Patrick, associate professor of law and psychology. 

State University of New York, Buffalo, NY, prepared statement of... 116 

Hart, Barbara J., Esq., staff counsel, Pennsylvania Coalition Against 

Domestic Violence, Reading, PA, prepared statement of 80 

Holtzman, Elizabeth, district attorney. Kings County, New York, pre- 
pared statement of 33 

Lee, Rana, community education developer for Marin Abused Women 

Services, Novato, CA, prepared statement of. 9 

Martin, Sheila, S. Washington, DC, prepared statement of 18 

Miller, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
California and chairman, Select Committee on Children, Youth, and 
Families: 

Opening Statement of 2 

Polluting the Censorship Debate, a summary and critique of the final 
report of the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography, July 

1986 chapters 2 and 8 158 

"Women, Violence, and the Law," a fact sheet 3 

Pope, Det. Lt. Darrell H., commanding officer (retired). Sex Crime Unit, 

Michigan State Police, Pensacola, FL 147 

Schroeder, Elizabeth, special assistant, district attorney, letter to Select 

Committee on Children, Youth, and Families, dated December 21, 1987 . 187 
Sears, Alan E., legal counsel. Citizens for Decency Through Law, Inc., 
Scottsdale, AZ: 

"Effects of Portrayals of Female Sexuality and Violence Against 

Women on Perceptions of Women", article entitled 67 

Prepared statement of 55 

Stewart, James K., director. National Institute of Justice 172 

Walker, Lenore, E., Ed.D., A.B.P.P. president and psychologist. Walker & 
Associates, Denver, CO, prepared statement of 131 

(III) 



WOMEN, VIOLENCE, AND THE LAW 



WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1987 

House of Representatives, 
Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families, 

Washington, DC. 

The Select Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:15 a.m., in room 
304, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. George Miller (chairman 
of the select committee) presiding.- 

Present: Representatives Miller, Boxer, Sawyer, Coats, Wolf, 
Johnson, Wortley, and Grandy. 

Staff present: Ann Rosewater, staff director; Ginny duRivage, 
professional staff; Tim Gilligan, research assistant; Carol Statute, 
minority deputy staff director; Evelyn Anderes, staff assistant (mi- 
nority); and Joan Godley, committee clerk. 

Chairman Miller. The Select Committee on Children, Youth, 
and Families will come to order. 

The purpose of today's hearing is to start to cover the subject 
matter of women, violence, and the law. 

Violence against women is an everyday occurrence in America. 
How our legal system treats those women who are the victims is 
the subject of today's hearing before the Select Committee on Chil- 
dren, Youth, and Families. 

In the United States, a woman is beaten every 18 seconds. Every 
SV2 minutes, a woman is a victim of rape or attempted rape. 

While we might expect, in 1987, that crime and violence draw no 
distinctions between men and women, our expectations are wrong. 
Nearly two-thirds of the violent crimes committed against men are 
committed by strangers. In contrast, more than half of all the vio- 
lent crimes against women are committed by people they know, in- 
cluding family members. 

When I first expressed concern about domestic violence a decade 
ago, one of my colleagues accused me of trying "to take the fun out 
of marriage." I am pleased to say that since then, Congress has en- 
acted the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act and other 
programs to assist victims of rape and battery, including the 
"Sexual Abuse Act of 1986," which allows prosecution by spouses 
who have been raped on Federal territory. 

But violence committed behind closed doors still gets an incon- 
sistent response from our justice system, when it gets any response 
at all. 

While domestic violence is considered a crime in most States, 
many police and judges continue to view spousal abuse as a purely 
private matter. And the vast majority of domestic disputes still do 

(1) 



not result in arrest, despite evidence that arrest is their best deter- 
rent. 

Legal studies also show that in the majority of rape cases, the 
better the victim knows the assailant, the less likelihood he will be 
prosecuted. And in 35 States, where a husband and wife are living 
together, there are still many circumstances under which spousal 
rape is not a crime. In cases of "date" rape, a woman saying "no" 
to sex is not sufficient proof of nonconsent in the eyes of the law. 

Women victims may be doubly jeopardized if they try to protect 
themselves. A battered wife who kills her husband to protect the 
lives of her children or herself is more likely to be convicted of 
murder than the husband who beats his wife to death. 

Today's topic has been ignored for far too long. Because it is nei- 
ther comfortable nor pleasant, it has been hidden by a cloak of si- 
lence. 

For that reason, I am particularly impressed with the courage of 
our two witnesses, one from my home State of California, who have 
agreed to come forward and share their personal experiences with 
us. 

We will also hear from scholars and legal experts, and we are 
especially pleased to welcome as one of our witnesses, Elizabeth 
Holtzman, a former colleague and the current District Attorney for 
Kings County, New York. 

It is my hope that this hearing will contribute to greater under- 
standing of the severity of family violence and the best legal reme- 
dies to protect its victims. 

At this time, I would like to recognize members of the committee 
for any opening statements. 

[Statement of Hon. George Miller follows:] 

Opening Statement of Hon. George Miller, a Representative in Congress From 
THE State of Caufornla, and Chairman, Select Committee on Children, 
Youth, and Famiues 

Violence against women is an everyday occurence in America. How our legal 
system treats those women who are victims is the subject of today's hearing before 
the Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families. 

In the United States, a woman is beaten every 18 seconds; every three and one- 
half minutes, a woman is a victim of rape or attempted rape. 

And while we might expect, in 1987, that crime and violence draw no distinctions 
between men and women, our expectations are wrong. Nearly two-thirds of the vio- 
lent crimes committed against men are commited by strangers. In contrast, more 
than half of all violent crimes against women are committed by people they know, 
including family members. 

When I first expressed concern about domestic violence a decade ago, one of my 
colleagues accused me of trying "to take the fun out of marriage." I'm pleased to 
say that since then. Congress has enacted the Family Violence Prevention and Serv- 
ices Act and other programs to assist victims of rape and battering, including the 
"Sexual Abuse Act of 1986." which allows prosecution by spouses who have been 
raped on federal territory. 

But violence committed behind closed doors still gets an inconsistent response 
from our justice system, when it gets any response at all. 

While domestic violence is considered a crime in most states, many police and 
judges continue to view spousal abuse as a purely private matter. And the vast ma- 
jority of domestic disputes still do not result in arrest, despite evidence that arrest is 
their best deterrent. . . 

Legal studies also show that in the majority of rape cases, the better the victim 
knows her assailant, the less likelihood that he will be prosecuted. And in 36 states, 
there are still many circumstances under which spoiisal rape is not a crime. In 



cases of "date" rape, a woman's saying "no" to sex is not sufficient proof of noncon- 
sent in the eyes of the law. 

Women victims may be doubly jeopardized if they try to protect themselves. A 
battered wife who kills her husband to protect the lives of her children or herself is 
more likely to be convicted of murder than is the husband who beats his wife to 

death. . r ^ ui 

Today's topic has been ignored for far too long. Because it is neither comfortable 
nor pleasant, it has been hidden by the cloak of silence. 

For that reason, I am particularly impressed with the courage of two of our wit- 
nesses, one from my home state of California, who have agreed to come forward to 
share their personal experiences with us. 

We will also hear from scholars and legal experts, and we are especially pleased 
to welcome as one of our witnesses, Elizabeth Holtzman, a former colleague and the 
current District Attorney for Kings County, New York. 

It is my hope that this hearing will contribute to greater understanding of the 
severity of family violence and the best legal remedies to protect its victims. 

"Women, Violence, and the Law"— a Fact Sheet 

VIOLENCE against WOMEN COMMON IN U.S.: MAJORITY COMMITTED BY RELATIVES, 

ACQUAINTANCES 

In 1984, 2.3 million violent crimes (rape, assault, and robbery) were committed 
against women over age 12, compared with 3.6 million against males. (Bureau of 
Justice Statistics [BJS], Department of Justice, 1986) 

In 1986, 57% of violent crimes committed against women were committed by non- 
strangers, compared with 37% of violent crimes committed against men. (BJS, 1987) 

77% of the victims of violent crimes committed by relatives are women. 70% of 
victims of violent crimes committed by strangers are men. (BJS, 1987) 

Crimes committed by relatives are more likely to involve attacks and injury and 
are likely to require medical attention than crimes committed by strangers. (BJS, 
1987) 

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ALSO COMMON: OFTEN INVOLVES RAPE 

Between 1978 and 1982, 2.1 million women were victims of domestic violence at 
least once during an average 12-month period. One-third of domestic violence be- 
tween 1978 and 1982 involved rape, robbery or assault. During the six-month period 
following an incident of domestic violence, 32% of the women were victimized again. 
(BJS, 1986) ^ . ^ 

In 1986, 30% of female homicide victims were killed by husbands or boyfriends. 
(Uniform Crime Reports, Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI], 1987) 

Battering and other physical violence were involved in 45% of the marital rapes 
reported in a representative sample of married women in Boston with children aged 
6 to 14. (Finkelhor and YUo, License to Rape: Sexual Abuse of Wives, 1985) 

Of the women in a San Francisco study who were currently or formerly married, 
21% reported that they were subjected to physical violence by a husband. (Russell, 
Rape in Marriage, 1982) 

In a survey of women in the Rocky Mountain area who reported having been bat- 
tered, 59% said they were forced to have sex with the batterer. (Walker, The Bat- 
tered Woman Syndrome, 1984) 

RAPE IS FASTEST GROWING VIOLENT CRIME; MAJORITY COMMITTED BY ACQUAINTANCES 

In 1986, a woman was a victim of rape or attempted rape every three-and-a-half 
minutes, totalling more than 153,000 rape victims. 51.3% of completed rapes in 1984 
were committed by nonstrangers. (BJS, 1986, 1987) 

Between 1977 and 1986, the number of rapes reported to the police increased 43%, 
making rape the fastest growing violent crime in the country. (FBI, 1978 & 1987) 

Nearly 45% of women in a San Francisco random sample reported that they were 
subjected to at least one rape or attempted rape in their lifetime. 82% of the rapes 
were committed by nonstrangers and two-thirds of the victims were assaulted by ac- 
quaintances or friends. (Russell, 1982; Sexual Exploitation, 1984) 

Ten to 14% of the married or formerly married women were raped or sexually 
assaulted by their current or former husbands; 3% reported that they were raped or 
sexually assaulted by strangers. (Russell, 1982; Finkelhor and YUo, 1985) 

Young women ages 16-19 have the highest rape victimization rates; 20-24 year 
olds have the second highest rates. Eight percent of white women and 11%, of black 



women are likely to be raped in their lifetimes. (Koss & Harvey, The Rape Victim, 
1987; BJS, 1987) 

One in eight women students reported experiences within the previous 12 months 
that met legal definitions of rape, according to an extensive three year survey. 84% 
of college students who were victims of completed rapes knew their assailant and 
two thirds of them were assaulted by a date (Koss, Journal of Consulting and Clini- 
cal Psychology, March 1987) 

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE TAKES SERIOUS TOLL ON CHILDREN 

A study of children in shelters for battered women found higher rates of child 
abuse in families where there is wife abuse then in other families. In 70% of the 
cases, the child abuse is committed by men. (Layzer et. al.. Center for Women Policy 
Studies, 1986) 

A Colorado study found that 53% of battering husbands abused their children. 
(Walker, 1984) 

In a majority of states, judges are not required to consider proof of domestic vio- 
lence in determining child custody. Ten states and the District of Columbia require 
spousal abuse to be considered in temporary smd/or permanent custody decisions 
(Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Iowa, Texas, and 
Washington). (National Center on Women and Family Law [NCWFL], 1987) 

Men and women who saw their parents physically attack each other were three 
times more likely to hit their own spouses than were those with non-violent parents. 
The sons of the most violent parents have a rate of wife-beating ten times greater 
than that of the sons of non-violent parents. (Straus, Gelles & Steinmetz, Behind 
Closed Doors, 1980) 

LAWS INADEQUATE TO PROTECT WOMEN AGAINST RAPE AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 

State laws vary regarding treatment of marital rape. In nearly 3/4 (36) of the 
states, under many circumstances it is legal for a husband to rape his wife. 
(NCWFL, 1987) 

In 7 states, exemptions from prosecution for rape extend to cohabitants (Connecti- 
cut, Delaware, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnestota, Montana, West Virginia). In 5 states, a 
partial exemption extends to voluntary social companions with whom the victim has 
previously had sexual contact (Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, and Pennsylva- 
nia). (NCWFL, 1987) 

Five states and the District of Columbia require mandatory arrest for domestic 
violence when police have probable cause to believe that a misdemeanor has been 
committed (Connecticut, Louisiana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington). One state re- 
quires mandatory arrest when police have probable cause to believe that a felony 
has been committed (Maine). (NCWFL, 1987) 

Eight states require mandatory arrest for restraining-order violations (Delaware, 
Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, Washington State, and Wiscon- 
sin). (NCWFL, 1987) 

VICTIMS OF ASSAULT BY ACQUAINTANCES UNUKELY TO REPORT THE CRIME 

Only 5% of women college students who reported forced sex during the previous 
year reported the incident to the police. (KOSS, 1987) 

Less than 10% of rapes reported in the San Francisco survey had been reported to 
the police. (Russell, 1984) 

A minority of rape victims who contacted rape crisis centers in Massachusetts re- 
ported their victimization to the police. (Waldron & Dodson-Cole, Mass. Dept. of 
Public Health, 1986) 

POLICE COURTS FAIL TO REDRESS VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN BY HUSBANDS AND 

ACQUAINTANCES 

Studies across the nation have found that rapes by acquaintances are two to five 
times less likely to result in an indictment than rapes by strangers. (Estrich, Real 
Rape, 1987) 

In only 1.7% of domestic dispute calls to police in St. Petersburg is an arrest 
made. (St. Petersburg Times, 5/21/84) 

Seventy percent of police officers interviewed said they completed written reports 
in fewer than 20% of domestic violence cases; 13% of the others said they never 
reported family disturbances. (Lerman, Harvard Journal on legislation, 1984) 

A Minnestota study found that arrest is more effective in preventing further vio- 
lence in cases of domestic dispute than either police mediation or separation of the 
parties for the night. (Sherman & Berk, American Sociological Review, 1984) 
Revised, October 1987. 



Chairman Miller. Congresswoman Johnson. 

Mrs. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I do not have a prepared opening statement, but I do want to say 
that this is an issue I was involved in very heavily as a State Sena- 
tor and have been very pleased to represent the town of Torring- 
ton, Connecticut, where a very significant decision was made about 
a year ago, requiring holding the police accountable for their ne- 
glect of protection of women in danger from their husbands. 

That decision is beginning to reverberate certainly in Connecti- 
cut, and I hope throughout the nation. 

We are just beginning to be able to recognize that women who 
are battered are simply victims of crime and reflect that in our 
laws. I think this is an important hearing this morning and I do 
thank the witnesses, because it does take courage to face up public- 
ly to the enormity of the physical and emotional abuse that many 
women have taken routinely for many years. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Miller. Mrs. Boxer. 

Mrs. Boxer. Mr. Chairman, I do not have an opening statement. 
I am just very pleased, again, that you are on the cutting edge of 
these important issues. 

I also wanted to note that one of the first witnesses is from my 
congressional district and I want to welcome her. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for putting this together. 

Chairman Miller. Thank you. 

With that, we will call the first panel, which will be made up of 
Rana Lee, who is from Novato, California, and Sheila Martin, who 
is from Washington, D.C. 

Ms. Lee, welcome to the committee. Thank you for your willing- 
ness to spend your time and tell us some of your experiences and 
some of your concerns. 

Your written statement will be put in the record in its entirety 
and you can proceed in the manner in which you are most comfort- 
able. 

STATEMENTS OF RANA LEE, COMMUNITY EDUCATION DEVELOPER 
FOR MARIN ABUSED WOMEN SERVICES, NOVATO, CA 

Ms. Lee. My name is Rana Lee. At the present time, I ani Com- 
munity Education Developer for Marin Abused Women Services in 
California. I am a 50-year-old mother of three and grandmother of 
three. I am an ex-battered wife and an incest survivor, having been 
molested many times as a child by an uncle. 

Born and raised in Boston, I come from an upper middle-class 
home. My father is a retired dentist. I attended a private high 
school and was a sophomore in college when I met my first hus- 
band. 

Six and a half years ago, I ran from my second husband. At that 
time, I weighed 98 pounds, was abusing cocaine, valium and alco- 
hol, and was suicidal. My first marriage was emotionally abusive, 
never physical. My husband ranted and raved for 18 years. I could 
do nothing right. 

If I left an ashtray on the left side of the coffee table, it belonged 
on the right. If the kids' rooms were messy, it was my fault. He 



threw things at me and the children, hit walls, broke doors and 
whittled down what little self-esteem I had left. 

During those years, I was secretary of the PTA, on the Girl Scout 
Counsel, a Girl Scout leader, treasurer of my children's swim team, 
president of a Hadassah group and youth director in a temple. 

I went to my parents after my two girls were born and told them 
I wanted a divorce. I wanted to come home. It was made very clear 
to me that that was out of the question. I was told to do better and 
make my marriage work. 

Over these past six years, I have heard this story from hundreds 
of battered women. Their families blamed them. If they get hit, it 
was "What did you do to upset him?" 

I tried. I stayed. I had a son. Things got worse. My husband 
became a professional gambler. I begged him to stop, to no avail. 
We moved to LA. He sold futures in whiskey that did not exist and 
ended up in Lompac Federal Prison for a year. Only when he was 
in prison did I feel safe enough to serve him with divorce papers. 

My parents told me I had been a fool to marry him, and I knew 
it. I wanted to die. I went to see my doctor. He prescribed 10 milli- 
grams of Valium three times a day to calm me down because I 
could pay for it. He refilled it for five years, with no questions 
asked. 

I was lonely and scared. My family told me I was stupid. They 
helped me out, but they pulled me down further and further talk- 
ing about my failures. 

I met my second husband the same year I divorced my first. He 
told me how wonderful I was and how he would help me raise my 
kids. He turned me on to cocaine and took me to his favorite bar to 
have fun. He also punched holes in the walls when angry and 
broke his hand by hitting the door of my daughter's car. 

By this time, I felt, "This is the type of man I deserve." 

On my wedding night, he threw me against the bathroom sink, 
pushed me onto my knees and forced me to perform humiliating, 
outrageous sex for hours, pulling my hair to the roots and slam- 
ming my head into the sink when I fought him. I begged him to 
stop, but he refused, dragging me to the bed and lying on me for 
what seemed ages. I fought, and I cried, and he laughed. He told 
me he was the boss and I now belonged to him, and he would hurt 
me and my children if I did not behave. 

He bought me a huge bouquet of flowers the next day, crying 
that he was drunk and did not mean to hurt me. 

The next three-and-a-half years were a nightmare. 

I remember the time he wanted his dinner served the same time 
that I was supposed to pick up my 12-year-old son at the movies. 
There were no buses where we lived and it was dark. The movie 
was about two miles from my home. He grabbed me by the hair, 
bashing my head into the kitchen cabinets, giving me a concussion. 

He took me to the hospital, crying all the way. He did not want 
to go to jail and I was afraid to press charges. 

I told the hospital that I had fallen and hit my head on the 
kitchen table. 

There were many incidents of marital rape, often after a beating. 
I never pressed charges out of fear. 



At that time, I had no idea there were shelters for abused 
women and their children. I did not even realize I was an abused 
woman. There were no laws then on marital rape. 

I was working as a bail bondsman at the time and therefore had 
contact with many police. I knew how they felt about dealing with 
domestic violence cases, listening to them complain bitterly about 
the women who called for help, and therefore I kept my mouth 
shut. 

The fear of his hurting my children kept me with him for three 
years. Little did I know at the time that he had also raped my 14- 
year-old daughter. She told me about this at the age of 20 when she 
attempted suicide. 

Pressing charges of rape is a very frightening thing for a woman. 
The burden of proof is still on her, and if it is a partner, the shame 
is even deeper. 

Looking into the eyes of someone you thought you loved as he is 
raping you is something that I have tried to describe over and over 
again, but it is impossible to put it into words. 

In California, the marital rape law was passed in 1979, but it 
must be reported within 90 days. In the last six months, 23 Marin 
Abused Women Services Shelter residents reported marital rape. 
None of them have pressed charges. The fear of what would 
happen to them on the witness stand is too deep. They are also 
afraid that their partners will find them and kill them. The shame 
is too deep and they say nothing. 

Most women do not even realize that marital rape is against the 
law. In talking to police officers, I am finding that more and more 
of them do not know about this law. District attorneys tend to dis- 
courage prosecution because they think they will lose because they 
do not feel they have enough evidence. 

Police officers, knowing this, do not want to make arrests. 

The only way this could change is for us to get out the word that 
marital rape is against the law and for the judicial system to sup- 
port the woman who presses charges, not discourage her. 

My family and I have turned our lives around since leaving the 
abuse. I feel very fortunate. My daughter is a recovering drug 
addict, clean and sober for two years, a new mother and no longer 
suicidal. 

I have been clean and sober for four years. I no longer am suici- 
dal and, as you can see, I no longer weigh 98 pounds. I have 
learned to love myself and I love life. 

I met people in the battered women's movement who encouraged 
me over and over again. It was hard. My son ended up living with 
my sister for three years. I had to sign a paper that I was an unfit 
mother for her to keep him in Massachusetts. 

I had hit bottom. Death seemed the only answer. My daughter 
attempted suicide. I almost died in a car accident. But the strength 
that kept me going all those years kept me going then. 

I have since appeared on the "Today Show," "Hour Magazine," 
the "Sally Jessie Raphael Show," and "NBC Nightly News," talk- 
ing about prevention work with teens. I was also the Northern 
California United Way ad for 1986. I have spoken to over 6,000 
high school students. 



8 

In 1984, I became the first domestic violence consultant for a 
school district in the United States, in Berkeley, California. I have 
produced 60 radio programs on the issue and have conducted anon- 
ymous surveys with over 3,000 Marin County high school students 
through a grant given to Marin Abused Women Services by the 
California office of Criminal Justice Planning. The results of the 
surveys will be in print in October. 

Of the first 1,400 surveys, 36 percent of the girls told us they had 
been or were being abused. Of those 36 percent, 24 percent told us 
their primary abuser was their boyfriend. Many girls talk of rape, 
many blaming themselves. 

It is the responsibility of this society to stop this. As adults, we 
think the children of this generation have different attitudes than 
we did, but this is not true. 

This committee must do all it can to help stop violence in the 
home between intimate partners. Listen to what the battered 
women's movement has to say. The laws we have now would not 
have happened without the unpaid work of many of the women 
who make up the battered women's movement. 

As you know, it took many years for Congress to enact legisla- 
tion that grant moneys to some shelters. We still need more shel- 
ters and we need more Federal funding. 

This cannot be done without the support of those who make the 
laws and those who enforce them. You can stop the harassment of 
the victim. Let women know the laws will protect them and not 
persecute them. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Rana Lee follows:] 



Prepared Statement of Rana Lee, Community Education Developer for Marin 

Abused Women Services, Novato, CA 



At the present ti.iie I am Community Education Developer for Mann 
Abused Women Services in California, working primarily in the high 
schools on relationship abuse. I am a 50 year old mother of three 
and grandmother of three. I am an ex-battered wife and incest 
survivor, having been molested many times, as a child, by an uncle. 
Born and raised in Boston, I come from an upper middle-class home. 
My father is a retired dentist. I attended a private high school 
and was a sophomore in college when I met my first husband. 

Six and one-half years ago I ran from my second husband. At 
that time I weighed 98 pounds, was abusing cocaine, Valium and 
alcohol and was suicidal. 

My first marriage was emotionally abusive, never physical. My 
husband ranted and raved for 18 years. I could do nothing right. 
If I left the ashtray on the left side of the coffee table, it 
belonged on the right; if the kids rooms were messy, it was my 

fault. He threw things at me and the children, hit walls, punched 
doors and whittled down what little self esteem I had left. 



10 



During those years, I 'was secretary of the ?TA, on the Girl 
Scout Council, a Girl Scout leader, treasurer of niy children's swini 
team; president of an Hacassan group and youth director in a Te-ple. 

I went to my parents after my two girls were corn and told them 
I wanted a divorce. I wanted to come ho~e. It was made very clear 
to me that that was out of the question. I was told to do oetter 
and to "make my marriage work.' Over these past six years, I have 
heard this story from hundreds of battered women. Their families 
blamed them if they got hit, it was, "What did you do to upset him?" 

I tried. I stayed. I had a son. Things got worse. My husband 
became a professional gambler. I begged him to stop, to no avail. 
We moved to Los Angeles. He sold futures in whiskey that didn't 
exist and ended up in Lompac Federal Prison for a year. Only when 
he was in prison, did I feel safe enough to serve him with divorce 
papers. 

By this time my parents offered some help. But they told me 
that I had been a fool to marry him and I knew it. I wanted to 
die. I went to see my doctor. He prescribed 10 milligrams of 
Valium three times a day to "calm me down." And because I could pay 
for it, he refilled it for five years with no questions asked. I 
was lonely and scared. My family told rie I was stupid and they 
pulled me furtr.er and furtr.er down talkir.c about ay failure. 



11 



I r.et ~.y second nussand tr.e sa.r.e year I divorcee ry first one. 
He told T.e now wonderful I was. How ne would help le to raise my 
kids. He turned me on to cocaine and took T.e to r.is favorite oar to 
have 'fun.' He also punched noles in walls when angry and oroke his 
hand by hitting the door of my daughter's car. 

By tnis time, I felt this is the type of man I deserved. On my 
wedding night he threw me against the bathroom sink, pushed me onto 
my knees and forced me to perform fellatio for hours, pulling my 
hair to the roots and slamming my head into the sink when I fought 
him. I begged him to stop; out he refused, dragging me to bed and 
lying on me for what seemed ages. I fought and cried and he 
laughed. He told me he was the boss. I now belonged to him and he 
would hurt me and my children if I didn't behave. 

He bought me a huge bouquet of flowers the next day crying that 
he was drunk and didn't mean to hurt me. The next three and 
one-half years were a nightmare. 

I remember the time he wanted his dinner served at the same time 
as I was supposed to pick up my 12 year old son at the movies. 
There were no buses where we lived and it was dark. The movie was 
about two miles from my home. He grabbed me by the hair, pushed my 

head into the kitchen cabinet, giving me a concussion. He took me 
to the hospital crying on the --ay. He didn't want to go to jail and 



12 



I was afriad to press charges. I told tr.e hospital cnat I nad 
fallen and hit my r.ead on the kitchen racle. 

I knew he would come after me again. There were many instances 
of marital rape — often after a beating. I never pressed charges 
out of fear. At that time, I had no idea there were shelters for 
aoused women and their children. At that time I didn't realize I 
was an abused women. And there were no laws then on marital rape. 

I was working as a bail bondsman at the time and therefore had 
contact with many police. I knew how they felt about dealing with 
domestic violence cases. Listening to them complain bitterly about 
the women trtio called for help, I therefore kept my mouth shut. 

The fear of his hurting my children kept me with him for three 
years. Little did I know at the time that he had also raped my 1.4 
year old daughter. She told me about this at the age of 20 when she 
attempted suicide. 

Pressing charges of rape is a very frightening thing for a 
woman. The burden of proof is still on her, and if it is a partner, 
the shame is even deeper. Looking into the eyes of someone you 
thought you loved — as he is raping you — is something that I have 

tried to describe over and over again, but it is impossible to put 

inco words. 



13 



In Califonia tr.e ."narital rape law was passed ir. 1979. It is a 
.Tiisdemeanor ar.c -jst be reported in 90 days. In tr.e last six 
months, 23 residents of tne Mann Acjsed Women Services Shelter 
reported -aritai rape. None of them nave pressed cr.arges. The fear 
of what would happen to them on the witness stand is too deep. They 
are also afraid that their partners will find tnem and kill them. 
The shame is too deep, they say nothing. 

Most women don't even realize that marital rape is against the 
law. In talking to police officers, I am finding that more and more 
of them do not know about this law. District Attorneys tend to 
discourage prosecution because they think they will lose because 
they don't feel they have enough evidence. Police officers knowing 
this don't want to make arrest. The only way this could change is 
for us to get out the word that marital rape is against the law and 
for the judicial systea to support the women who press charges — 
not discourage them. 

My family and I have turned our lives around sihce-^^aving the 
abuse. I feel very fortunate. My daughter is a recovering drug 
addict. Clean and sober for two years, a new mother and no longer 
suicidal. I have been clean cmd sober for four years. I am no 
longer suicidal and as you can see, I no longer weigh 98 pounds. 



14 



I have learne- to love nyself and co love life. I -et people in 
the oattered women's move.T.ent who encouraged Jie over and over 
again. It was hard. Y.y son ended jp living witr, -y sister for 
tnree years. I had to sign a paper tnat I was an unfit mother for 
her to keep him in Massachusetts. I had hit bottom. Death seemed 
the only answer. My daugnter attempted suicide; I almost died in a 
car accident. But the strength that kept me going through all those 
years kept me going then. 

I have since appeared on the Today show; Hour Magazine; Sally 
Jessie Raphael, and NBC Nightly News talking about prevention work 
with teens. I was also in the Northern California United Way ad in 
1986. I have spoken to over 6,000 high school students, became the 
first domestic violence consultant for a school district in the 
United States, in Berkeley. I have produced 60 radio programs on 
the issues and have conducted anonyiaous surveys with 3,000 Marin 
county high school students through a grant given to the Marin 
Abused Women Services by the California Office of Criminal Justice 
Planning. The results of the surveys will be in printed in October. 

Of the first 1400 surveyed, 36% of the girls told us they had 
been or were being abused. Of those 36%, 24% told us their primary 
abuser was their boyfriend. Many girls talk of rape. Many blame 
themselves. It is the responsibility of this society to stop this. 

As adLlts we tr.in.< tr.e children of ihis generation nave different 
attitudes than we did. But this is not true. 



15 



This CoiTuTiittee .niuSt do all it can to neip stop violence in tr.e 
none oetween inti~ate partners. Listen to wr.at tr.e cattered wor.en's 
movement has to say. The laws we have now would not nave happened 
without the unpaid work of many of the women who mane up the 
oattered womens movement. As you know, it took many years for 
Congress to enact legislation to grant money to some shelters. We 
still need more shelters and more federal funding. This cannot be 
done without the support of those who make the laws and those who 
enforce them. 

You can stop the harrassment of the victim. Let women know tne 
laws and protect them. Not persecute them. They must be fair and 
equitable too. 



16 

Chairman Miller. Thank you. 

Ms. Martin, welcome to the committee, and we appreciate your 
taking your time to be with us this morning. You may proceed in 
the manner in which you are most comfortable. 

STATEMENT OF SHEILA S. MARTIN, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. Martin. Thank you. 

I am Sheila Martin, age 39, mother of three children and a 
native of Washington, D.C. I am here today speaking as a battered 
woman. 

I met my husband, Mr. Martin, in the summer of 1983. He was 
an aspiring boxer, training for the 1984 Olympics. I was impressed 
by the goals Mr. Martin had set for himself and wanted very much 
to be a part of the accomplishment of these goals. During our 
courtship, Mr. Martin presented himself as caring and open. He 
wanted very much to be my partner. We began living together in 
the fall of 1983. 

Almost immediately, I noticed a drastic change in his behavior. 
He was constantly demanding money for various reasons. When I 
expressed my concern that nothing positive was being accom- 
plished, the response was physical abuse. 

Mr. Martin would choke me until he rendered me unconscious. 
There were other physical attacks involving hitting, slapping and 
kicking. Many of these attacks were witnessed by my son. Sham. I 
tried to explain that these attacks were not our fault. They were 
the result of trauma Mr. Martin had experienced in his youth. 

My son was not able to understand. What he understood was 
that the man who his mother loved beat her. 

I married Mr. Martin in spite of the problems in our relationship 
because I believed the stability of a permanent relationship would 
give him the assurance he needed. In spite of my best efforts, the 
violence increased in both frequency and severity. 

I v/as held hostage in my home on many occasions and not al- 
lowed to go to work. Abuse also took the form of rape. Mr. Martin 
would repeatedly force me into sexual intercourse against my will. 

Since I knew that the District of Columbia had no laws pertain- 
ing to marital rape, prosecution for this crime was not possible. 
The police were called on numerous occasions to remove Mr. 
Martin from our home. I witnessed enormous tolerance for Mr. 
Martin's behavior. He received little more than a slap on the wrist 
for crimes that if committed by a friend or stranger, would have 
resulted in a felony charge. 

Once the police were gone, Mr. Martin returned to abusing me. 
He believed, and continues to believe, that because I am his wife, 
he can treat me as he pleases. 

My son began rebelling. He lost interest in school and demon- 
strated a total disrespect for me as an authority figure. In July of 
1984, there was a fire in my home. I had just had Mr. Martin legal- 
ly removed from my home. I found the timing of the fire very in- 
teresting. As a result of the fire, my son and I were separated. 

By this time, Mr. Martin was definitely out of control. He was 
admitted to St. Elizabeth's Hospital for his drug and mental prob- 
lems. While a patient, I allowed Mr. Martin to have home visits. 



17 

My son was totally against this, but I explained that, as a family, 
we had a responsibility to help Mr. Martin. 

Mr. Martin began to drink, which quickly got out of control. He 
became physically abusive again. I turned to his mother for help. 
His mother was adamant that she did not want Mr. Martin in her 

home either. ^ , , t 

By the end of 1984, I finally had Mr. Martin out of the home. I 
moved in March of 1985 and had no contact with Mr. Martin for 
the next four months. In July of 1985, I once again allowed Mr. 
Martin into my home, after promises that he had changed. Disaster 

followed. 

My son was completely out of control. The abuse contmued. Mr. 
Martin constantly stole money from me to buy drugs. The commu- 
nity where my family had been long-standing members began expe- 
riencing the effects of Mr. Martin's antisocial behavior. 

I asked him on several occasions to seek professional help. These 
requests were met with either no response or physical abuse. 

Mr. Martin was arrested on several occasions for robbery in 1986. 
I was embarrassed; my son was ashamed. We lived in constant 

My neighbors were constantly calling the landlord about the 
fighting in my home. Mr. Martin had been asked several times to 
leave the premises. His response was, "I am not going anywhere." 
He has broken the locks on the main entrance to my apartment 
building, as well as the locks on my own front door. 

I have pursued every legal avenue available to me. The legal 
system is slow at best in resolving domestic problems. The process 
is time-consuming. It requires time away from work that many 
women cannot afford. This generally leads to conferences with the 
employer about so much time missed from work for personal prob- 

lems. 

The police department's general position is that of "hands off." 
In one ridiculous incident, I was not allowed to remove formula for 
the baby because the ownership was in question. 

The domestic violence in my home left me one option: leave. 
There was no legal recourse that would protect me from Mr. 
Martin. Ironically, the only possible solution lies in having Mr. 
Martin committed to a mental hospital for his drug and mental 
problems. This, because his behavior was having an effect on the 
community, not my family. . 

My story continues. On Friday, September 11, 1987, Mr. Martm 
broke into my home and stole a radio and a hair dryer. On Satur- 
day, September 12, he again broke into my home and destroyed 
furniture. 

[Prepared statement of Sheila S. Martin follows:] 



18 



Prepared Statement of Sheila S. Martin, Washington, DC 

I ajn Sheila Martin, age 39, mother of three (3) children and 
a native Washingtonian, I am here today speaking as a battered 
woman. 

I met my husband Mr. Martin in the Summer of 198 3. He was 
an aspiring boxer, training for the 1984 Olympics. I was impressed 
by the goals Mr. Martin had set for himself and wanted very much 
to be a part of the accomplishment of these goals. During our 
courtship, Mr. Martin presented himself as caring and open. He 
wanted very much to be my partner. We began living together in 
the Fall of 1983. 

Almost immediately I noticed a drastic change in his behavior. 
He was constantly demanding money for various reasons. When I 
expressed concern that nothing positive was being accomplished, 
the response was physical abuse. Mr. Martin would choke me 
until he rendered me unconscious. There were other physical 
attacks involving hitting, slapping, kicking. Many of these 
attacks were witnessed by my son Sham. I tried to explain 
that these attacks were not our fault, they were the result 
of trauma Mr. Martin had experienced in his youth. My son was 
not able to understand. VJhat he understood was that the man who 
his mother loved beat her. 

I married Mr. Martin in spite of the problems in our 
relationship because I believed the stability of a permanent 
relationship v/ould give hin the assurance he needed. In spite 
of my best efforts, the violence increased in both frequency 
and severity. I was held hostage in my home on many occasions 



19 



not allowed to go to work. Abuse also took the form of rape. 
Mr. Martin would repeatedly force me into sexual intercourse 
against my will. Since I knew that the District of Columbia had 
no laws pertaining to marital rape, prosecution for this crime 
was not possible. The police were called on numerous occasions 
to remove Mr. Martin from our home. I witnessed enormous 
tolerance for Mr. Martin's behavior. He received little more than 
a "slap on the wrist" for crimes, if committed by a friend or 
stranger would have resulted in felony charges. Once the Police 
were gone, Mr. Martin would return to abusing me. He believed 
and continues to believe that because I am his wife he can treat 
me as he pleases. 

My son began rebelling. He lost interest in school and 
demonstrated a total disrespect for me as an authority figure. 
In July of 1984 there was a fire in my home. I had just had 
Mr. Martin legally removed from our home. I found the timing of 
the fire very interesting. As a result of the fire, ray son and 
I were separated. 

By this time Mr. Martin was definitely out of control. He 
was admitted to St. Elizabeth's hospital for his drug and mental 
problems. While a patient, I allowed Mr. Martin to have home 
visits. My son was totally against this, but I explained that 
as a family we had a responsibility to help Mr. Martin. 

Mr. Martin began to drink which quickly got out of control. 
He became physically abusive again. I turned to his mother for 
help. His mother was adamant that she did no;: want Mr. Martin 
in her home either. Bv the end of 1984, I finally had Mr. Martin 



20 



out of the home. I moved in March of 1985 and had no contact 
with Mr. Martin for the next four (4) months. In July of 1985 
I once again allowed Mr. Martin into my home after promises that 
he had changed. Disaster followed. My son was completely out 
of control. The abuse continued. Mr. Martin constantly stole 
money from me to buy drugs. The community where my family had 
been longstanding members began experiencing the effects of 
Mr. Martin's anti-social behavior. I asked him on several 
occasions to seek professional help. These requests were met 
with either no response or physical abuse. Mr. Martin was 
arrested on several occasions for robbery in 1986. I was 
embarrased, my son was ashamed. We lived in constant fear. 

My neighbors were constantly calling the landlord about 
the fighting in my home. Mr. Martin had been asked several times 
to leave the premises. His response was "I am not going anywhere." 
He has broken the locks on the main entrance to my apartment 
building as well as the locks on my own front door. 

I have pursued every legal avenue available to me. The 
legal system is slow at best in resolving domestic problems. 
The process is time consuming. It requires time away from work 
that many women cannot afford. This generally leads to conferences 
with the employer about so much time missed from work for personal 
problems. The Police Department's general position is that of 
"hands off." In one ridiculous incident I was not allowed to 
remove formula for the baby because the ownership was in question. 

The domestic violence in my home left me one option — leave. 
There was no legal recourse that would protect rae from Mr. Martin. 



21 



Ironically, the only possible solution lies in having Mr. Martin 
committed to a mental hospital for his drug and mental problems. 
This, because his behavior was having an effect on the community, 
not my family. 

My story continues. On Friday, September 11, 1987, Mr. Martin 
broke into my home and stole a radio and hair dryer. On Saturday, 
September 12, 1987, he again broke into my home and destroyed 
furniture. 



22 

Chairman Miller. Thank you very much, both of you, for your 
testimony. 

Ms. Lee, you mentioned that 23 residents of the Marin Abused 
Women's Service Shelter reported marital rape. They reported 
that, I assume, to be in compliance with law, that somebody ad- 
vised them they should. 

Ms. Lee. They reported it to us in our intake form, but they 
never went any further. 

Chairman Miller. They never made a formal complaint? 

Ms. Lee. No. 

Chairman Miller. Is there any mechanism for counseling these 
women how to proceed should they desire to do so? 

Ms. Lee. They could go to a sexual assault center and get some 
help. 

Chairman Miller. In the District Attorney's office or 

Ms. Lee. They can go to a Victim Witness Advocate and discuss 
it, but many times they are discouraged. And they are so fright- 
ened. These are women who are in hiding. 

Chairman Miller. Do you think that that fear is the biggest bar- 
rier to 

Ms. Lee. Fear is one of the barriers. Fear of being torn apart 
about their own personal — who they are, if they get on the stand, 
and what their lives are, instead of it being a crime and that the 
perpetrator — and fear of being killed. 

Chairman Miller. You mentioned that you have gone through 
some 1,400 of the surveys of the 3,000 students in Marin County, so 
obviously it is not complete and the figure may change, but in 
terms of the number of women that reported abuse, I assume most 
of that is abuse by somebody they know? 

Ms. Lee. Yes. 

Chairman Miller. I mean, because of their age. 

Ms. Lee. Either parents or a boyfriend. A few were stranger 
rape, I think one or two, but that was it. 

Chairman Miller. Ms. Martin, what you are telling this commit- 
tee is that you are a resident of D.C. Are you a resident of the Dis- 
trict? 

Ms. Martin. I am a Washingtonian, sir, yes. 

Chairman Miller. What you are suggesting is that Mr. Martin, 
because of his marital status, enjoys a privilege from prosecu- 
tion 

Ms. Martin. Yes, it appears that way to me. 

Chairman Miller [continuing]. That if you report your husband 
for an assault or battery or even robbery of your property or keep- 
ing you from your property, that essentially you are told that that 
is a domestic matter and law enforcement cannot or will not re- 
spond to your complaints. 

Is that accurate? 

Ms. Martin. That is true, sir. 

Chairman Miller. Even in the cases where you have, in fact, 
complained formally and directly about physical assaults against 
you? 

Ms. Martin. Yes. 

Chairman Miller. And the response has been what? 



23 

Ms. Martin. It is still "hands off." No criminal prosecution is im- 
mediately forthcoming. It has dragged on and on and on and it is 
still considered domestic. We should resolve that, either among 
ourselves 

Chairman Miller. Have the police been to your house 

Ms. Martin. On many occasions. 

Chairman Miller [continuing]. At the time of violence, right 
after violence? 

Ms. Martin. Right after violence 

Chairman Miller. What has been their response? 

Ms. Martin. Either Mr. Martin was taken downstairs and talked 
to or had to pursue the fact that he had no reason being there and 
should be returned to the hospital anyway. He had no permission 
from me to be in the home on most of the occasions that he was 

there. 

Chairman Miller. But essentially what you are saying is that 
even after repeated offenses— we have been told this in other in- 
stances of cases where women have been killed in domestic vio- 
lence cases— the police in many instances have been to that ad- 
dress numerous times 

Ms. Martin. That is true, sir. 

Chairman Miller [continuing]. Prior to that. 

Ms. Martin. That is true. Many times. And it is a fearful envi- 
ronment and a fearful situation for a woman to find herself in, 
really, when there is no protection for her. 

Chairman Miller. What you are telling us is that, essentially, 
you keep calling upon the law enforcement system to protect 
you 

Ms. Martin. The services of the law enforcement community m 

this city, yes, sir. 

Chairman Miller. And they tell you that this is a domestic 
matter and they really have no jurisdiction? 

Ms. Martin. That is true. On many occasions, that is how it was 
or they would refer me to the Civil Complaint Center. That is not a 
solution for the immediate problem. 

Chairman Miller. A number of years ago, I spent some time 
riding with police officers in the District and in Northern Virginia, 
especially with those officers who might respond to domestic vio- 
lence or domestic calls. The idea was that these officers would be 
trained to understand that, in fact, a lot of this is still criminal be- 
havior. 

Their argument was that you can take these people down and 
you can arrest them, but, as you both pointed out, your husband is 
going to come and make up with you and so you are just misusing 
the police department's time. 

But you are suggesting that it does not even go that far; that 
they make that decision that, in a sense, they are playing judge 
and jury 

Ms. Martin. That is right. 

Chairman Miller [continuing]. Right at the doorstep by telling 
you that he is not guilty of anything you say that he has done. 

Ms. Martin. Yes, on many occasions, yes. That has been the atti- 
tude on many occasions in my particular situation. 



24 

Ms. Lee. We have had police — they will tell you that it is your 
fault, that you let him back in anyway, so what happened is your 
fault. You know, you took the chance in the hope to save this rela- 
tionship, this family, but it was your fault you had him there. It is 
really his home, too, so why should they remove him from his 
home, even though your life might be in danger. Why should they? 

Chairman Miller. Thank you. 

Mrs. Johnson. Ms. Martin, did you file complaints or try to take 
legal action? Did you go to Legal Aid or try to find some way to 
lodge criminal actions against your husband in these situations? 

Ms. Martin. Yes, I have. As I said before, it is a tedious process. 
It is long and drawn-out. Papers were served on many occasions on 
Mr. Martin, and most of the time, that was ignored. He had to be 
taken to the courts physically in order to respond to the issues that 
I was raising about what was occurring in the home. 

Mrs. Johnson. So he would just ignore a lot of these things 
unless the authorities were willing to take the time to go get him, 
which, of course, they gradually lost interest in doing. 

Ms. Martin. That is true. 

Mrs. Johnson. So even where there is a law and a process and 
you use it, it fails to protect you. 

Ms. Martin. Yes, it does. As it is now, yes. Yes, it does. 

Mrs. Johnson. Ms. Lee, have you worked much — I know you 
have done this survey with these kids — but in the course of your 
work and with your own children — and I imagine some of your 
children's friends, you have found this about — have you thought 
about how we are going to get into the teenage community early? 

Ms. Lee. I do it through the schools. We do it through the schools 
and we spend three days with every classroom that we go to and 
teach them the issues and the problems and hear them out. 

Mrs. Johnson. Are you aware of any programs that are ongoing 
that have demonstrated their ability to prevent girls from entering 
into — to change the course of their life? Are we that far along any- 
where? 

Ms. Lee. No, not at this moment, except that I have done a pilot 
program — there are some other than mine, but we are one of the 
first — with nine high school girls. We spent a year this year on 
self-esteem, and two of them left abusive relationships by the end 
of that year and one of them said, "Well, I've got him so he no 
longer hits me; he just throws things," and she feels she has gotten 
somewhere. 

All of them come from abusive homes and when they first met 
me said that they all thought that was it; that they deserved what 
was happening and it was a part of their lives. So they are just be- 
ginning to, but there are no programs and they are even cutting 
our funding. 

Mrs. Johnson. How frequently do these kids that are involved in 
abusive relationships become pregnant? 

Ms. Lee. I don't work for Planned Parenthood, but I would say 
that it was in the norm of whatever the figures are 

Mrs. Johnson. Then we really don't know anything about the re- 
lationship between teenage pregnancy rates and abusive relation- 
ships? 

Ms. Lee. There has been no study that I know of up to this point. 



25 

Mrs. Johnson. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony here 
today and we look forward to working with you to see if we cannot 
get some resources out there that will be more effective to those 
who are victims, but also to our young women. 

Chairman Miller. Congresswoman Boxer. 

Mrs. Boxer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Lee, it seems to me, in listening to your story, which is just 
hair-raising, there were two times, twice, where you really went to 
people who should have helped you to break out of this, it seems to 
me, and one of them is the time you went to your parents to please 
help and the response was, "It's your problem; you must be doing 
something wrong." 

Was there anything, when you were growing up— I mean, you 
have bared your soul here, and I don't mean to press further, so if 
it is uncomfortable, don't answer it, but was there anything in your 
growing-up years that would give you the clue that if you went to 
your parents later, they would have that type of attitude? 

Ms. Lee. No. 

Mrs. Boxer. It really surprised you that you were rejected by 
them in that fashion? 

Ms. Lee. They are very loving parents. My mother tells me now 
that she was afraid to have me come home because then they 
would have to help me with the children and she felt that I needed 
to make my marriage work because she had to live in her — you 
know, marriage is something where you make it work. 

Mrs. Boxer. So in their minds, they took care of you until you 
were 18 or 20 and once you were out of school, that was your life, 
and there was not a continuum of care in a sense. 

Then the second time, which really infuriates me, is when you 
went to the doctor and he put you on valium and essentially got 
you addicted to drugs. Is that not true? 

Ms. Lee. Absolutely. And I have to tell you that from working 
with the shelter in the past two years, over half the women who 
come into our shelter have prescription drugs in their purses that 
are usually tranquilizers. 

Mrs. Boxer. Right. 

Mr. Chairman, I think this is an area — I do not know what we 
will do about it, but I have to say that I have heard more stories of 
doctors just doing the easy thing, which is to just prescribe drugs 
and walk away and say, "Oh, and you can refill them any time." I 
think it is particularly true when they are men dealing with 
female patients. I think it is an outrageous situation that we really 
ought to look further into. 

The last point I wanted to share with you, because you have 
shared it with me, is this incredible survey that the chairman 
picked up on. For those who do not know this particular county, 
Marin County, where we live, this is one of the wealthiest counties 
in California and probably in the country. The minority population 
is about 1 percent. So we are talking about a situation here of 
wealthy, white, middle-class and upper-class people, where 36 per- 
cent of the teens surveyed said they were in some form of abusive 
relationship — or they have experienced some kind of abuse. 

Ms. Lee. These are the girls. Over 51 percent of the students 
talked about some violence in their home or their relationships. 



26 

Mrs. Boxer. So this is obviously an issue that cuts across all 
lines and we have to do something, it seems to me. If it is not hap- 
pening in the homes; if the kids are not feeling loved and have no 
self-esteem, we have to help groups like Marin Abused Women to 
do this. 

Ms. Martin, I just had one question. I, again, am stunned by your 
story. It seems to me your only hope — and I know you do not want 
to do this — is to leave your community unless this man is locked 
up. You almost have to change your name and move away and — it 
is an unbelievable thing. 

Ms. Martin. That is true. 

Mrs. Boxer. Society is telling you, "Sorry, lady, you'll have to 
take care of it by becoming somebody else and leaving the home 
that you love." Do you think that is probably true unless things 
change and they put him away? 

Ms. Martin. That is true. My feeling is now, why should I have 
to? 

Mrs. Boxer. Right. 

Ms. Martin. Why, as a woman, should this trauma be put on us? 
I don't think it is fair and I don't think it is right. There are chil- 
dren who have to restart their friendships and their social lives 
and it is not 

Mrs. Boxer. He is the one who should have to leave and 
change 

Ms. Martin. We need to face their responsibilities; that they are 
in error, and what society really expects of them. 

Mrs. Boxer. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. These wit- 
nesses were superb. 

Chairman Miller. Congressman Sawyer. 

Mr. Sawyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My questions are really only two. Tell me if you are uncomfort- 
able answering these kinds of questions. 

Ms. Lee, if Ms. Martin were in your community, with the re- 
sources that you have available directly to you, and she came to 
you with the kind of problem that she has described, what would 
you be able to do in order to help her? How would you counsel her 
and how could you help her? 

Ms. Lee. We would tell her her options and she would make her 
own choices as to what she wanted to do. We would help her get a 
restraining order and we would help her — she may stay in our 
shelter for six weeks, which is the maximum time she can stay 
with us, and we only can house 14 women and children at a time. 

We can give her, you know, the legal system and hand her over 
to Victim Witness, but her chances, even in our county, are not 
great. Though they are better than some, they are not great. 

We can help and stand by her, what decision she may make. 

Mr. Sawyer. What would her chances be, even given the kinds of 
enlightened and relatively strong resources that you have? 

Ms. Lee. Not good. A lot of our women go back because they 
have no place else to go. There is no housing; there is no money; 
they have children. They feel hopeless and they go back because 
there is no place else to go. 

Mr. Sawyer. My second question, and either of you may feel free 
to answer this one, let's assume for a moment that this is the same 



27 

community and that we represent the police department, the court 
system, the legislature's capacity to enact laws: what would you 
tell us that we need to do in Marin County in order to help you 
deal with the problem with which we deal this morning. 

Ms. Lee. More funding to get our programs larger and give us 
more support to back the laws that are sitting there, but nobody is 
there to support us. 
Mr. Sawyer. It is not a matter of changing the laws; it is a 

matter of 

Ms. Lee. Some of them still have to change also, but at least get- 
ting even that far. We are still working to change the laws, the 
custody laws. The batterer can still have visitation rights with his 
children when he is battering his partner and she has to take the 
child over there. 

Mr. Sawyer. Is that a pivotal point because of the leverage that 
the child represents? 
Ms. Lee. Absolutely. 

Mr. Sawyer. What other kinds of questions 

Ms. Lee. She cannot leave the county sometimes with the child 
because he has made it clear, through the law. He gets an order 
that she is to stay in that county with his children. Therefore, she 
is there. 

Also, there is a lot of shame. You do not feel good about yourself, 
and you are asked to bare your soul to men in the judicial system 
who do not want to hear it. 

Mr. Sawyer. Are there differences just in the immediate kind of 
response you get from law enforcement agencies that you have 
been able to detect or sense or even measure between the way in 
which male and female police officers respond in these circum- 
stances? 
Ms. Lee. Sometimes even the female officers are worse. 
Mr. Sawyer. Is that right? 
Ms. Martin. Yes. 
Mr. Sawyer. Less sensitivity. 
Ms. Lee. Less sensitivity, absolutely. 

Ms. Martin. Very much, I think. In the particular case about 
even removing the baby's formula and the question of ownership of 
that, it was a female officer making this kind of statement who 
was there at the request of the court to assist me. 

Mr. Sawyer. Those dollars that you mentioned, those would be 
directed toward residential alternatives to the home; is that kind of 

problem 

Ms. Lee. Also towards those of us who are working to change the 
laws and self-esteem work we are doing in the high schools. I think 
the answer is going to be in prevention. It is going to be in educat- 
ing our young people that it is not okay and that this can change 
and that it is a learned behavior and that boys can learn a differ- 
ent way, and that there are alternatives and they need to learn it 
before they are our age. They need to learn it when they are really 
young. 

We do not have the funding to continue even our program by the 
end of this year. That is it. We are out of the schools and the kids 
don't hear us anjntnore. 
Mr. Sawyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



28 

Chairman Miller. Let me just comment. Your answer was more 
funding to get programs in place, but you can have all the pro- 
grams you wanted — and we are going to hear about some programs 
that other jurisdictions use — but until you have confidence that the 
law is going to treat you with all of the diligence that you are enti- 
tled to after suffering an aggravated assault or a battery and physi- 
cal abuse, it seems to me that not a lot is going to happen. 

Each of you has gone through the experience, I believe, of going 
to an advocacy program, a shelter program, that has laid out to 
you what your situation was. In both instances, you start out your 
testimony suggesting this was normal. You thought this was 
normal behavior and then you realized at some point that even if it 
was normal, you could not accept it. Then you found out that it 
was not normal. 

But at the end of the story, as sophisticated as you became, you 
still find out that the law is set up in a fashion that it really does 
not recognize these crimes. One of the reasons this hearing is 
taking place is that there are a lot of new publications right now 
that suggest that that is, in fact, the rule rather than the excep- 
tion. In most jurisdictions, either formally or informally, the law 
does not respond in these instances of violence against women. 

I wrote the legislation to provide Federal help for shelters, but 
when we get all done with that, if you then send them on their 
way to the district attorney's office or to a court system where you 
tell them, "Next time, you have the absolute right to protect your- 
self by calling the county sheriff," and they just look at you, that 
program is not going to help. 

I think we have to back up for a moment here because, you 
know, we are all interested in prevention, and this committee has 
been dedicated to that; but we are also a little interested in deter- 
rence. As we are starting to see in some jurisdictions where the 
rules are hard and fast and men are starting to appreciate that 
there may be a price paid, there is some indication that some of 
that behavior may be changed. It may not be accepted, but 
changed. 

I just wanted to amplify on that point, that while we seek fund- 
ing, the point that I think this hearing is trying to get at is wheth- 
er or not the law, as it is currently on the books, which is supposed 
to be gender-neutral, is working. 

We will take a break and go vote and I will come back for the 
next panel. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman Miller. The next panel that the committee will hear 
from will be the Honorable Elizabeth Holtzman, District Attorney 
for Kings County, New York; Alan E. Sears, former Executive Di- 
rector of the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography and 
Legal Counsel for Citizens For Decency Through Law, from Scotts- 
dale, Arizona; and Barbara Hart, Co-Director of the National Clear- 
inghouse on Battered Women's Self Defense and Staff Counsel, 
Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence from Reading, 
Pennsylvania. 

I did not get an opportunity, because of the quick recess for the 
vote, to thank Ms. Lee and Ms. Martin for their rather graphic tes- 
timony of what it means to live in the violent domestic situation in 



29 

far too many jurisdictions in this country. The committee very 
much appreciates their wiUingness to come forth and to tell us 
their story. 

Elizabeth, thank you for joining us. We appreciate you taking 
your time from your busy schedule as District Attorney in New 
York to share with us some of your concerns and also some of the 
things that your office is doing with respect to this problem of how 
women are treated in these violent situations. 

You may proceed in the manner in which you are most comforta- 
ble. 

STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, 

KINGS COUNTY, NY 

Ms. HoLTZMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a spe- 
cial pleasure and privilege for me to be back here, and especially 
before you and this committee. 

I have a prepared statement which I would ask be incorporated 
in full in the record and I will try 

Chairman Miller. It will be, without objection. 

Ms. HoLTZMAN [continuing]. To summarize some of the points 
that I make. 

First, I think it is important to recognize that violence against 
women exists in epidemic proportions in American society. It is 
also important to recognize that this violence takes a number of 
forms, always drawing inspiration and sustenance from deeply en- 
grained prejudice and stereotypes about women and their role in 
society. 

Marital rape is one of the most extreme manifestations of preju- 
dicial attitudes towards women. Marital rape, as you have heard 
from the testimony of witnesses, is not a mere bedroom squabble. It 
is a violent and forcible assault on the bodily integrity of the 
woman; it is an act of humiliation and degradation, often involving 
extreme violence and often perpetrated in front of children. 

Despite the gravity of marital rape, it is still not treated every- 
where as a crime. Today it is still legal in various circumstances 
for a man to rape his wife in 36 States of this nation. Thus, in 
almost three-quarters of the States, a man who rapes his wife is 
not guilty of a crime, no matter how brutal the assault. 

The fundamental legal premise underlying the right of marital 
rape is the notion that a woman, once married, becomes the prop- 
erty of her husband. It is incredible that any law in 1987 should 
embody the view that a person is the property of any other person. 
But in one form or other, the marital rape laws in 36 States* do. 

However, in the last few years, there have been some positive de- 
velopments with respect to the problem of marital rape. A number 
of States have moved to reject, abolish or limit marital rape exemp- 
tions by legislation or court decision. In 1984, New York State's 
highest court declared the marital rape exemption unconstitution- 
al. I am proud to have filed an amicus brief in that case, but it is a 
testament to the lack of understanding of the importance of this 
issue that I was the only prosecutor in New York State to do so. 

On the negative side, it is important to recognize that there is a 
trend now going the other way. In fact, a number of States in the 



80-78^ 88 - 2 



30 

last few years have actually expanded the marital rape exemption 
to encompass couples living together and even to voluntary com- 
panions. 

These changes seem to reflect the dangerous belief that once a 
woman says yes to a man, she gives up the right ever to say no. 
These trends must be understood and combatted. 

Marital rape is only one form of violence perpetrated against 
women in American society. Domestic violence is another. The FBI 
has estimated that one spouse or lover is beaten every 18 seconds 
in America; that as many as 6 million women are battered every 
year. 

Violence against women has an ancient derivation. You may be 
interested to know that the expression, "the rule of thumb," comes 
from the shameful tradition embodied in common law that made it 
legal for a man to beat his wife as long as the stick was not wider 
than his thumb. 

One of the important things to note is that domestic violence and 
abuse perpetuates itself. Studies have found that about three-quar- 
ters of male abusers were themselves abused as children and that a 
majority of boys who witnessed violence at home grow up to abuse 
their mates. 

Furthermore, wife-battering may lead sons to avenge their moth- 
er's pain. Sixty-three percent of males aged 11 to 20 who commit 
homicide kill the man who abuses their mother. 

[For updated statistics, see letter dated December 21, 1987, on page 
187.] 

Among prisoners, between 75 and 90 percent were abused as chil- 
dren, strongly suggesting a link between victims of domestic vio- 
lence and crime in general. 

Domestic violence can have other effects. Five hundred eighty-six 
men were killed by their wives or girlfriends last year, almost 
always as a response to being beaten. There have been some stud- 
ies that have suggested that abused children, and those who wit- 
ness abuse, have higher suicide rates than other children who are 
not so exposed. 

A New York City study found that one-half of the women who 
attempt suicide and those who actually kill themselves are bat- 
tered women. Part of the problem in dealing with domestic vio- 
lence is, as you have noted, the problem of the response of the 
criminal justice system. Just recently in New York a task force re- 
ported on the problem of treatment of women in the courts and 
they found that, too often, judges, court personnel and law enforce- 
ment officials were indifferent to the criminal nature of domestic 
violence. 

To quote, "Many judges would ask victims: 'What did you do to 
deserve this beating,' or 'Why don't you just kiss and make up,' " 
questions that would be unthinkable if the case involved another 
violent crime. 

Let me suggest an agenda of things that need to be done. First, 
police response. It is crucial, it seems to me, that the police respond 
aggressively and vigorously and properly. A Minnesota study has 
found that a mandatory arrest policy seemed to reduce the number 
of repeat incidents of domestic violence. It is important that that 
experience be replicated; that arrests be the prime method of re- 



31 

sponse; and the Federal Government encourage localities to adopt 
that policy and help evaluate implementations of the policy to 
make sure that it is working effectively. 

We need to have an integrated criminal justice response. In my 
office, felony domestic violence cases are handled by specially 
trained assistant district attorneys. In addition, we have, with an- 
other agency, developed training programs and trained judges who 
handle misdemeanor cases in Brooklyn. We are currently trying to 
extend the training program, but we have not only encountered re- 
sistance to an expansion of the training program to other judges. 
Unfortunately, the training of prosecutors and judges in general is 
not the norm. Even when there are training programs, they do not , 
specifically focus on domestic violence. 

Another recommendation goes to the issue of the availability of 
orders of protection. When a woman is being battered, she needs 
immediate relief and it is often very difficult to get judges to re- 
spond properly by issuing an order of protection promptly. 

My office has done various things in this respect. One is that we 
have developed methods to speed up the process of issuing orders of 
protection in Brooklyn. In addition, we worked with the courts to 
establish a special program which has, since November of 1986, 
handled over 1,500 cases of battered women; 99 percent of those 
cases involved the issuance of an order of protection on the very 
same day. 

Orders of protection need to be issued in the language that the 
woman can understand. We have seen tragic circumstances where 
a woman was issued an order of protection in English, was not 
English-speaking, and did not know the significance of the order. 
Therefore, she did not use it to protect herself. We urged the courts 
in New York to provide orders of protection translated into Span- 
ish, and that is now taking place. We think that is important. 

We also think that is important for the judges to understand and 
for prosecutors to try to argue for a woman's right to stay in the 
home. As a standard procedure in appropriate cases, we argue at 
the time the order of protection is issued, or even later if it is nec- 
essary, that it is not the woman who should be forced out of the 
home, even though the home or apartment may not belong to her, 
but that the batterer should be forced to move. 

Shelters. Obviously, there is a tremendous need for additional 
shelters. 

We also need more effective sentencing programs. One of the 
problems that we have discovered is that many women do not want 
to see their husbands imprisoned. They want the violence to stop; 
they want the relationship to continue on a nonviolent basis, but 
they will not cooperate if it involves putting their husbands in 
prison. 

As a consequence, we developed a program which involves a 
court order sentencing the batterer to a treatment program. If nec- 
essary, as part of the sentence, the batterer will be required to un- 
dertake alcohol or drug abuse treatment as well. 

We think these programs are extremely successful, but unfortu- 
nately, there is a three-month waiting list for defendants in Brook- 
lyn to get into this program. And, there are very few programs of 
this kind around the country. These kinds of programs need to be 



32 

funded, because in the absence of such court-ordered sentencing 
programs in battering cases, we will find that many, if not the ma- 
jority, of these cases will proceed without any court resolution. The 
situation will then be the same as before the woman brought 
charges and she will be subjected to continued, if not intensified, 
battering. 

We need early intervention programs. We are now involved in 
two pilot programs in Brooklyn. One involves stationing counselors 
in police precincts so that a woman who calls, even if she is not 
asking for police intervention, can get information on what she can 
do; what referrals there are, social agencies, shelters and the like. 

A second program involves having an assistant district attorney 
and a family violence advocate assess each case and try to arrange 
appropriate kinds of counseling and other help. We also need more 
programs to provide counseling and assistance to victims of domes- 
tic violence. 

In the end, of course, we need to deal with the problem of 
women's standing in society. Violence against women is the most 
visible and perhaps most odious form of discrimination against 
women, and it is largely a symptom of the broader refusal of the 
society we live in to recognize the humanity and dignity of women 
that derives from a recognition of their equality. 

This will not be a truly just society, we will not resolve the prob- 
lems of violence against women until we are prepared to root out 
the prejudices from which it springs. 

[Prepared statement of Elizabeth Holtzman follows:] 



33 



Prepared Statement of Euzabeth Holtzman, District Attorney, 

Kings C!ounty, NY 

I WISH TO THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO 
TESTIFY THIS MORNING ON THE CRUCIAL PROBLEMS OF MARITAL RAPE 
AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. 

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN EXISTS IN EPIDEMIC PROPORTIONS IN 
AMERICAN SOCIETY. THIS VIOLENCE TAKES A NUMBER OF FORMS, 
ALWAYS DRAWING INSPIRATION AND SUSTENANCE FROM DEEPLY 
INGRAINED PREJUDICE AND STEREOTYPES ABOUT WOMEN AND THEIR 
ROLE IN THE SOCIETY. 

MARITAL RAPE IS ONE OF THE MOST EXTREME MANIFESTATIONS 
OF PREJUDICAL ATTITUDES TOWARD WOMEN. MARITAL RAPE IS NOT A 
MERE BEDROOM SQUABBLE. IT IS A VIOLENT AND FORCIBLE ASSAULT 
ON THE BODILY INTEGRITY OF A WOMAN. IT IS AN ACT OF 
HUMILIATION AND DEGRADATION, OFTEN INVOLVING EXTREME 
VIOLENCE, AND OFTEN PERPETRATED IN FRONT OF CHILDREN. 

ONCE RAPE IS UNDERSTOOD AS A CRIME OF VIOLENCE, IT IS 
APPARENT HOW DEVASTATING A BLOW MARITAL RAPE IS TO ITS 
VICTIMS. THE BRUTALITY OF THE ASSAULT IS COMPOUNDED BY THE 
MAGNITUDE OF THE BETRAYAL AND THE DIFFICULTY OF ESCAPE. AS 
DAVID FINKELHOR, A FAMILY VIOLENCE EXPERT AT THE UNIVERSITY 
OP NEW HAMPSHIRE, PUT IT, "WHEN YOU'RE RAPED BY A STRANGER, 
YOU HAVE TO LIVE WITH A FRIGHTENING NIGHTMARE. WHEN YOU'RE 
RAPED BY YOUR HUSBAND, YOU HAVE TO LIVE WITH YOUR RAPIST." 



34 



INDEED, PSYCHOLOGICAL STUDIES, BY DIANA RUSSELL AND 
OTHERS, HAVE FOUND THAT THE HARM CAUSED BY MARITAL RAPE 
CAN BE GREATER THAN THAT CAUSED BY STRANGER RAPE. MARITAL 
RAPE, ALONG WITH CHILD ABUSE BY A RELATIVE, MAY HAVE THE 
MOST SEVERE AND LONGLASTING EFFECTS OF ANY FORCIBLE SEXUAL 
EXPERIENCE. 

YET DESPITE THE GRAVITY OF MARITAL RAPE, IT IS NOT 
TREATED EVERYWHERE AS A CRIME. TODAY, IT IS STILL LEGAL 
UNDER VARIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES FOR A MAN TO RAPE HIS WIFE IN 36 
STATES. IN ALMOST 3/4 OF THE STATES IN THIS NATION, A MAN 
WHO RAPES HIS WIFE IS NOT GUILTY OF A CRIME, NO MATTER HOW 
BRUTAL THE ASSAULT. 

THE FUNDAMENTAL LEGAL PREMISE UNDERLYING THE "RIGHT" OF 
MARITAL RAPE IS THE NOTION THAT A WOMAN, ONCE MARRIED, 
BECOMES THE PROPERTY OF HER HUSBAND. AS NEW YORK STATE 
HIGHEST COURT NOTED: "THE VARIOUS RATIONALES WHICH HAVE BEEN 
ASSERTED IN DEFENSE OF THE [MARITAL RAPE] EXEMPTION ARE ... 
BASED UPON ARCHAIC NOTIONS ABOUT THE CONSENT AND PROPERTY 
RIGHTS INCIDENT TO MARRIAGE." THUS, A WIFE HAS NO SEXUAL 
AUTONOMY OR BODILY PRIVACY IN MARRIAGE, AND A HUSBAND MAY 
USE EVEN THE MOST VIOLENT MEANS TO ENFORCE HIS RIGHT TO HAVE 
SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH HER AT WILL. 

IT IS INCREDIBLE THAT ANY LAW IN 1987 SHOULD EMBODY THE 
VIEW THAT A PERSON IS PROPERTY. BUT, IN ONE FORM OR 
ANOTHER, LAWS IN 36 STATES DO. 



35 



THE FULL EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM OF MARITAL RAPE IS STILL 
UNKNOWN. ACCORDING TO PRELIMINARY SURVEYS IN BOSTON AND SAN 
FRANCISCO, BETWEEN 10 AND 14% OF MARRIED WOMEN HAVE BEEN 
RAPED BY THEIR HUSBANDS. ONE STUDY FOUND THAT ONE-THIRD OF 
THE WOMEN LIVING IN TEMPORARY SHELTERS REPORTED HAVING BEEN 
RAPED BY THEIR HUSBANDS. 

OF COURSE, FEW STATISTICS EXIST, IN PART BECAUSE MARITAL 
RAPE REMAINS LEGAL IN MANY STATES. EVEN WHERE MARITAL RAPE 
IS A CRIME, MANY PEOPLE DO NOT REPORT IT. NOT SURPRISINGLY, 
VICTIMS THEMSELVES OFTEN SHARE SOCIETY'S ATTITUDES ABOUT 
MARITAL RAPE. BECAUSE OF A PROFOUND LACK OF SELF-WORTH, 
WOMEN MAY THINK THAT THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO OBJECT TO FORCED 
SEX WITH THEIR HUSBANDS, EVEN IN STATES WHERE MARITAL RAPE 
IS A CRIME. THEY MAY FEEL THAT THEY ARE AT FAULT. IN 
ADDITION, WOMEN MAY BE SO ASHAMED BY THE HUMILIATION THEY 
HAVE SUFFERED THAT THEY DO NOT REPORT THE RAPE. 

CLEARLY, IF MARITAL RAPE IS TO BE COMBATED IN OUR 
SOCIETY, THE ANTIQUATED NOTIONS OF WOMEN AS PROPERTY 
EMBODIED IN STATE LAWS MUST BE ELIMINATED, AND MARITAL RAPE 
MUST BE TREATED AS THE SERIOUS ASSAULT THAT IT IS. UN- 
FORTUNATELY, RECENT TRENDS IN MARITAL RAPE LAW REFORM ARE 
MIXED. 



36 



ON THE POSITIVE SIDE, SEVERAL STATES HAVE MOVED IN THE 
LAST FEW YEARS TO REJECT, ABOLISH OR LIMIT THE MARITAL RAPE 
EXEMPTION BY LEGISLATION OR COURT DECISION. IN 1984, NEW 
YORK'S HIGHEST COURT DECLARED THE STATE'S MARITAL RAPE 
EXEMPTION UNCONSTITUTIONAL. MY OFFICE FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF 
ARGUING FOR SUCH A DECLARATION; WE WERE THE ONLY 
PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE IN THE STATE TO DO SO. IN 1985, THE 
GEORGIA SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THERE IS NO MARITAL RAPE 
EXEMPTION IN THAT STATE. 

ON THE NEGATIVE SIDE, IN SOME STATES, A SEXUAL ASSAULT 
BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE IS NOT CONSIDERED RAPE UNLESS THE 
PARTIES ARE LEGALLY SEPARATED. THIS IS CLEARLY INADEQUATE, 
SINCE A WOMAN OUGHT TO BE PROTECTED FROM A HUSBAND WHO 
ATTACKS HER, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE LEGAL RELATIONSHIP IS 
BETWEEN THEM. 

IN OTHER STATES, MARITAL RAPE IS TREATED AS A MIS- 
DEMEANOR, EVEN THOUGH OTHER RAPES ARE TREATED AS FELONIES. 
THIS, TOO, IS UNACCEPTABLE, AND ONLY REINFORCES THE STEREO- 
TYPED BELIEF THAT RAPE OF ONE'S WIFE IS LESS SERIOUS THAN 
RAPE OF ANOTHER WOMAN. 

THE MOST DISTURBING DEVELOPMENT OF ALL IS THAT SOME 
STATES HAVE ACTUALLY EXTENDED THE MARITAL RAPE EXEMPTION TO 
ENCOMPASS COUPLES LIVING TOGETHER AND EVEN "VOLUNTARY SOCIAL 



-'.V .. 



37 



COMPANIONS." THESE CHANGES SEEM TO REFLECT THE DANGEROUS 
BELIEF THAT ONCE A WOMAN SAYS "YES" TO A MAN, SHE GIVES UP 
THE RIGHT EVER TO SAY "NO." 

THESE TRENDS MUST BE UNDERSTOOD AND COMBATED. I URGE 
THE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE TO PLAY A ROLE IN HELPING TO 
EDUCATE AMERICANS ABOUT THE GRAVITY OF MARITAL RAPE AND 
ACQUAINTANCE RAPE. 

MARITAL RAPE IS ONLY ONE FORM OF VIOLENCE PERPETRATED 
AGAINST WOMEN IN AMERICAN SOCIETY. TODAY, ALTHOUGH IT IS NO 
LONGER LEGAL FOR MEN TO BEAT THEIR WIVES, SUCH DOMESTIC 
VIOLENCE IS STILL WIDELY ACCEPTED AND APPALLINGLY 
WIDESPREAD. 

THE FBI HAS ESTIMATED THAT ONE SPOUSE IS BEATEN EVERY 18 
SECONDS, AND THAT AS MANY AS SIX MILLION WOMEN ARE BATTERED 
EVERY YEAR. THIS VIOLENCE DOES NOT CONSIST OF "LOVE PATS": 
BETWEEN 2,000 AND 4,000 WOMEN DIE EACH YEAR FROM INJURIES 
INFLICTED ON THEM BY HUSBANDS OR LOVERS. FURTHERMORE, 
WIFE BEATING CAUSES MORE INJURIES TO WOMEN REQUIRING 
HOSPITALIZATION THAN ALL RAPES, MUGGINGS AND AUTOMOBILE 
ACCIDENTS COMBINED. 

THIS VIOLENCE HAS AN ANCIENT DERIVATION. HISTORICALLY, 
IN ADDITION TO SEXUAL DOMINATION AND CONTROL, MEN HAD THE 
LEGAL RIGHT TO OBTAIN THEIR WIFE'S SUBMISSION BY FORCE. 



38 



FOR EXAMPLE, THE EXPRESSION "RULE OF THUMB" COMES FROM THE 
SHAMEFUL TRADITION EMBODIED IN COMMON LAW THAT MADE IT LEGAL 
FOR A MAN TO BEAT HIS WIFE AS LONG AS THE STICK WAS NOT 
WIDER THAN HIS THUMB. 

WHAT ARE THE ATTITUDES UNDERLYING THE PERSISTENCE OF 
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ON SUCH A VAST SCALE? MANY MEN STILL 
BELIEVE THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONTROL, AND DEMAND OBEDIENCE 
FROM, THEIR WIVES AND LOVERS AND TO USE FORCE TO SECURE 
THEIR DEMANDS. MANY ALSO BELIEVE THAT WOMEN NEED TO BE 
SHOWN WHO'S BOSS, AND THAT "REAL" MEN DO NOT HESITATE TO USE 
FORCE . 

TOO OFTEN THE BATTERED WOMAN ACCEPTS A VIOLENT STATUS 
QUO. SHE MAY BELIEVE HER HUSBAND HAD THE RIGHT TO BEAT HER; 
SHE MAY BLAME HERSELF FOR PROVOKING VIOLENCE; SHE MAY HAVE 
SEEN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AS A CHILD AND THOUGHT IT NORMAL 
BEHAVIOR; SHE MAY BELIEVE THAT SHE MUST ACCEPT THE BEATINGS 
IF HER MARRIAGE IS TO REMAIN INTACT. 

EXTERNAL CIRCUMSTANCES MAY ALSO TRAP WOMEN IN VIOLENT 
MARRIAGES OR RELATIONSHIPS. MANY PEOPLE ASK OF DOMESTIC 
VIOLENCE VICTIMS: "WHY DON'T YOU JUST LEAVE?" ONE GROUP 
WORKING WITH BATTERED WIVES' ANSWERS WITH THE FOLLOWING 
SCENARIO: YOU ARE A WIFE WHO HAS BEEN BADLY BEATEN AND YOUR 
HUSBAND HAS THREATENED TO KILL YOU. YOU HAVE NO CREDIT 



39 



CARDS, JUST $20 AND ENOUGH MONEY TO BUY BUS TICKETS FOR 
YOURSELF AND THREE CHILDREN. YOU TAKE THE BUS TO A PLACE 
FAR FROM HOME TO ESCAPE YOUR HUSBAND, BUT YOU FIND THAT NO 
LANDLORD WILL RENT YOU AN APARTMENT, SINCE YOU DON'T HAVE A 
JOB. IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, YOU MAY BE ABLE TO FIND A 
SHELTER FOR YOURSELF, BUT NO ONE HAS 4 SPACES OPEN FOR YOU 
AND YOUR CHILDREN. YOU CANNOT QUALIFY FOR WELFARE, SINCE 
YOU HAVE NO PERMANENT ADDRESS. YOU CALL YOUR HUSBAND AND HE 
EITHER APOLOGIZES FOR HIS PAST BEATINGS AND PROMISES TO 
CHANGE, OR ELSE HE TELLS YOU HE WILL HUNT YOU DOWN AND KILL 
YOU IF YOU DO NOT COME HOME TO HIM. HOW LONG DO YOU THINK 
YOU CAN LAST? 

THE EFFECTS OF BATTERING, AS WELL AS OF MARITAL RAPE, 
ARE DEVASTATING NOT ONLY TO THE VICTIM, BUT ALSO TO HER 
FAMILY. BATTERING CREATES A CYCLE OF VIOLENCE THAT MAY TAKE 
GENERATIONS TO ELIMINATE. IN MANY MARITAL RAPE CASES, 
THE CHILDREN ARE SOMEHOW INVOLVED; SIMILARLY, 50% OF KNOWN 
CASES OF WIFE BATTERING ALSO INVOLVE CHILD ABUSE. 

IT SHOULD COME AS LITTLE SURPRISE THAT SUCH ABUSE 
PERPETUATES ITSELF; STUDIES HAVE FOUND THAT ABOUT THREE 
QUARTERS OF MALE ABUSERS WERE THEMSELVES ABUSED AS CHILDREN, 
AND THAT A MAJORITY OF BOYS WHO WITNESS VIOLENCE AT HOME 
GROW UP TO ABUSE THEIR MATES. AMONG PRISONERS, BETWEEN 7 5 



40 



AND 90% WERE ABUSED AS CHILDREN, STRONGLY SUGGESTING A LINK 
BETWEEN VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND CRIME IN GENERAL. 

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CAN HAVE OTHER, OFTEN UNANTICIPATED, 
EFFECTS. 586 MEN WERE KILLED BY THEIR WIVES OR GIRLFRIENDS 
LAST YEAR, ALMOST ALWAYS AS A RESPONSE TO BEING BEATEN. THE 
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH SERVICES FOUND THAT ABUSED 
CHILDREN AND THOSE WHO WITNESS ABUSE HAVE HIGHER SUICIDE 
RATES THAN OTHER CHILDREN WHO ARE NOT SO EXPOSED. 
FURTHERMORE, A NEW YORK CITY STUDY FOUND THAT ONE HALF OF 
THE WOMEN WHO ATTEMPT SUICIDE AND OF THOSE WHO ACTUALLY KILL 
THEMSELVES ARE BATTERED WOMEN. 

DESPITE THE DEVASTATING EFFECTS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, 
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM HAS TOO OFTEN FAILED TO RESPOND 
ADEQUATELY, IN PART BECAUSE THE SOCIAL ATTITUDES THAT 
LEGITIMIZE BATTERING ARE FOUND IN THE SYSTEM. THE RECENT 
NEW YORK STATE TASK FORCE REPORT ON WOMEN IN THE COURTS, FOR 
EXAMPLE, CITED SEVERAL INSTANCES IN WHICH JUDGES, COURT 
PERSONNEL, AND LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS WERE INDIFFERENT — 
OR WORSE -- TO THE CRIMINAL NATURE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. 
MANY JUDGES ASKED VICTIMS "WHAT DID YOU DO TO DESERVE THIS 
BEATING?" OR "WHY DON'T YOU JUST KISS AND MAKE UP?", 
QUESTIONS THAT WOULD BE UNTHINKABLE IF THE CASE INVOLVED 
ANOTHER VIOLENT CRIME. THESE ATTITUDES ARE PRESENT IN 
COURTROOMS THROUGHOUT THE NATION. 



41 



THE RESPONSE OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM TO DOMESTIC 
VIOLENCE IS ALSO HINDERED BY THE RELUCTANCE OF MANY VICTIMS 
TO COME FORWARD TO TESTIFY OR TO ENGAGE IN PROSECUTION AT 
ALL. HERE AGAIN, ECONOMIC AND EMOTIONAL DEPENDENCE ON THE 
BATTERER, SHAME AND GUILT MAY PLAY A ROLE, AS WELL AS 
THREATS ABOUT WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF THE WOMAN GOES THROUGH 
WITH PROSECUTION. 

WHAT CAN BE DONE TO STOP DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND TO EASE 
THE PLIGHT OF ITS VICTIMS? I URGE THE ADOPTION OF THE 
FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS : 

1) POLICE RESPONSE . WHEN A BATTERER IS TREATED LIKE A 
CRIMINAL AND ARRESTED, HE BEGINS TO UNDERSTAND THAT HIS 
BEHAVIOR IS CRIMINAL, WHICH CAN GO A LONG WAY TOWARD 
DETERRING FUTURE BATTERING. A LANDMARK STUDY IN MINNESOTA 
FOUND THAT A MANDATORY ARREST POLICY FOR POLICE ENCOUNTERING 
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE REDUCED THE NUMBER OF REPEAT SPOUSE ABUSE 
CALLS BY 47 PERCENT BETWEEN 1982 AND 1984. SINCE THAT TIME, 
DOZENS OF POLICE DEPARTMENTS ACROSS THE NATION — INCLUDING 
NEW YORK CITY'S — HAVE ADOPTED MANDATORY ARREST POLICIES. 

NONETHELESS, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OUGHT ACTIVELY TO 
ENCOURAGE MORE LOCALITIES .TO ADOPT MANDATORY ARREST 
POLICIES. FURTHERMORE, SUCH POLICIES MUST BE MONITORED TO 
ENSURE THAT THEY ARE BEING ENFORCED, AND EVALUATED SO THAT 
THE POLICIES MAY BE IMPROVED WHERE NECESSARY. 



42 



2) INTEGRATED CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESPONSE. IF BATTERERS 
ARE TO BE DETERRED, THEY MUST GET A CLEAR MESSAGE FROM ALL 
LEVELS OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM THAT THEIR VIOLENCE IS 
A SERIOUS CRIME. THEREFORE, PROSECUTORS, JUDGES, COURT 
PERSONNEL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS MUST BE TRAINED TO 
RECOGNIZE THE GRAVITY OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, TO UNDERSTAND 
THE NEED FOR APPROPRIATE SENTENCING, TO RECOGNIJE THE 
EFFECTS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ON FAMILIES, AND TO UNDERSTAND 
THE SPECIAL NEEDS OF ITS VICTIMS. 

MY OFFICE HANDLES FELONY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES 
THROUGH A SEPARATE BUREAU STAFFED BY SPECIALLY TRAINED 
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEYS. IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE 
VICTIM SERVICES AGENCY, WE HAVE PROVIDED TRAINING ON 
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FOR JUDGES HANDLING MISDEMEANOR CASES 
IN BROOKLYN, AND ARE CURRENTLY WORKING TO EXTEND TRAINING TO 
JUDGES HANDLING FELONIES. 

SUCH TRAINING OP PROSECUTORS AND JUDGES IS HARDLY THE 
NORM, IN NEW YORK CITY OR ELSEWHERE. GENERALLY, EVEN WHERE 
TRAINING PROGRAMS EXIST, THEY ARE OPTIONAL AND DO NOT DEAL 
SPECIFICALLY WITH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. IN FACT, WE EN- 
COUNTERED SERIOUS RESISTANCE IN TRYING TO EXPAND OUR 
TRAINING PROGRAMS TO OTHER JUDGES. IT IS VITAL THAT 



43 



LEGISLATORS AND OTHER OFFICIALS WORK TO ENSURE SENSITIVITY 
TOWARD DOMESTIC VIOLENCE THROUGHOUT THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE 
SYSTEM. 

3) AVAILABILITY OF ORDERS OF PROTECTION. IN MANY 
NON-ARREST CASES OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, THE STRONGEST PRIORITY 
IS TO STOP THE BATTERING IMMEDIATELY. THIS CAN BE DONE BY A 
COURT'S ORDER OF PROTECTION, FORBIDDING THE HUSBAND TO 
CONTINUE HIS CONDUCT ON PENALTY OF CONTEMPT. 

TOO OFTEN VICTIMS FIND IT DIFFICULT TO GET ORDERS OF 
PROTECTION FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS. SOMETIMES JUDGES ARE 
RELUCTANT TO GIVE ORDERS OF PROTECTION, UNDER THE MISTAKEN 
BELIEF THAT THEY WILL DO NO GOOD. SOMETIMES RED TAPE DELAYS 
THE GRANTING OF AN ORDER. 

MY OFFICE FROM THE BEGINNING WORKED TO SPEED UP THE 
ISSUANCE OF ORDERS OF PROTECTION. WE SUBSEQUENTLY ESTAB- 
LISHED A METHOD OF SECURING MANY ORDERS OF PROTECTION 
THROUGH A SEPARATE MAGISTRATES PART. UNDER THIS SYSTEM, THE 
VICTIM IS ASSIGNED AN ADVOCATE WHO ACCOMPANIES HER TO THE 
COURT AND REQUESTS THE ORDER OF PROTECTION. SINCE THIS 
PROGRAM WAS ESTABLISHED IN NOVEMBER 1986, IT HAS HANDLED 
OVER 1500 CASES OF BATTERED WOMEN; IN 99% OF THEM ORDERS OF 
PROTECTION WERE OBTAINED ON THE SAME DAY. 



44 



I BELIEVE THAT THIS COMMITTEE SHOULD URGE SIMILAR 
EFFORTS NATIONWIDE TO EASE THE GRANTING OF ORDERS OF 
PROTECTION AND SHOULD DISSEMINATE THE INFORMATION SO THAT 
THESE METHODS CAN BE ADOPTED. 

4) ACCESSIBILITY OF ORDERS OF PROTECTION. IT IS CRUCIAL 
THAT, IF ORDERS OF PROTECTION ARE TO BE USEFUL IN PROTECTING 
BATTERED WOMEN, THEY BE IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE VICTIM. 
TRANSLATIONS INTO SPANISH AND OTHER FOREIGN LANGUAGES MUST 
BE MADE AVAILABLE BY COURTS AS IS NECESSARY. 

IN NEW YORK, MY OFFICE FOUGHT FOR TRANSLATED ORDERS OF 
PROTECTION INTO SPANISH, AND WE GOT THEM. OTHER LOCALITIES 
CAN DO THE SAME. 

5) WOMAN'S RIGHT TO STAY IN THE HOME. IF WHEN SECURING 
AN ORDER OF PROTECTION, A BATTERED WOMAN IS FORCED OUT OF 
THE HOME, SHE IS EFFECTIVELY PUNISHED FOR HAVING BEEN 
BtATEN, AS WELL AS FOR HAVING COME FORWARD. TO AVOID THIS, 
MY OFFICE FOLLOWS A STANDARD PROCEDURE OF ADVOCATING THAT A 
VICTIM BE ALLOWED TO STAY IN THE HOME OR APARTMENT IN ALL 
APPROPRIATE CASES EVEN IF IT BELONGS TO HER BATTERER. WE 
DEVELOPED FOUR SPECIAL LEGAL MOTIONS WITH WHICH TO ARGUE A 
VICTIM'S RIGHT TO STAY IN THE HOME. OTHER PROSECUTORS 
SHOULD MAKE THE SAME EFFORTS. 



45 



6) SHELTERS . WHILE THE NUMBER OF SHELTERS FOR BATTERED 
WOMEN AND CHILDREN HAS RISEN IN THE LAST FEW YEARS TO ABOUT 
1200 NATIONWIDE, SPACE IS STILL FAR TOO SCARCE. ACCORDING 
TO THE NATIONAL COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, FOR 
EVERY ONE BATTERED WIFE OR CHILD WHO FINDS SPACE IN A 
SHELTER, TWO ARE TURNED AWAY. CONGRESS MUST MAKE INCREASED 
SHELTER SPACE A PRIORITY TO AID THE VICTIMS -- WOMEN AND 
CHILDREN — OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. 

7) EFFECTIVE SENTENCES . THERE MUST BE EFFECTIVE TREAT- 
MENT PROGRAMS AVAILABLE FOR SPOUSE ABUSERS. IN MANY CASES, 
A VICTIM OF BATTERING DOES NOT WANT HER HUSBAND TO GO TO 
JAIL, BUT SHE DOES WANT THE VIOLENCE TO STOP. ALLOWING 
JUDGES TO SENTENCE ABUSERS TO TREATMENT PROGRAMS NOT ONLY 
WILL ENCOURAGE THE COOPERATION OF VICTIMS, BUT WILL OFFER 
REAL HOPE THAT THERE CAN BE AN END TO THE VIOLENCE. WITH- 
OUT THESE SENTENCING OPTIONS, VICTIMS MAY NOT CO-OPERATE -- 

THERE WILL BE NO PROSECUTION OR COURi" SENTENCE, AND THE 

\ 
VIOLENCE WILL SIMPLY CONTINUE. \ 

TO MEET THIS NEED, MY OFFICE AND THE VICTIM SERVICES 
AGENCY INITIATED A PROGRAM CALLED "ALTERNATIVES TO VIOLENCE." 
UNDER THIS PROGRAM, COURTS SENTENCE BATTERERS TO A TREAT- 
MENT PROGRAM ON HOW TO AVOID FUTURE VIOLENCE. (WHEN APPRO- 
PRIATE, THEY ARE ALSO SENTENCED TO ENTER DRUG AND ALCOHOL 
TREATMENT PROGRAMS . ) APPARENTLY , THE OFFENDERS WHO COMPLETE 
THESE PROGRAMS DO NOT REENTER THE SYSTEM AS RECIDIVISTS. 



46 



HOWEVER, THERE IS CURRENTLY A 3 MONTH WAITING LIST FOR THE 
"ALTERNATIVES TO VIOLENCE" PROGRAM, AND SIMILAR PROGRAMS ARE 
SORELY NEEDED IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS. 

8) VICTIM COUNSELING. VICTIMS OF MARITAL RAPE AND 
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ARE AMONG THE MOST TRAUMATIZED OF ALL 
CRIME VICTIMS, AND REQUIRE SPECIAL COUNSELING. WE HAVE 
ARRANGED FOR COUNSELING FOR VICTIMS IN BROOKLYN, BUT, IN 
GENERAL, THIS TYPE OF COUNSELING IS INADEQUATELY FUNDED 
THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. THIS MUST CHANGE. 

9) EARLY INTERVENTION PROGRAMS . IN MANY CASES, 
PROVIDING IMMEDIATE HELP TO A FAMILY IN WHICH ABUSE IS 
OCCURRING MAY REDUCE OR PREVENT FURTHER VIOLENCE, AND HELP 
VICTIMS ENTER AND STAY IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. 
BROOKLYN HAS TWO EARLY INTERVENTION PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO DO 
EXACTLY THAT. ONE PROGRAM STATIONS COUNSELORS IN POLICE 
PRECINCTS TO HELP VICTIMS WHO SIMPLY CALL THE POLICE LOOKING 
FOR ADVICE AND INFORMATION. THESE COUNSELORS PROVIDE 
REFERRAL SERVICES TO VICTIMS WHO MAY NOT YET BE READY TO 
PROSECUTE . 

A SECOND PROGRAM PROVIDES VITAL SERVICES FOR VICTIMS IN 
ARREST AND SUMMONS CASES. AN ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY 
AND A FAMILY VIOLENCE ADVOCATE ASSESS EACH FAMILY'S NEEDS 



47 



AND ARRANGE NEEDED ASSISTANCE, INCLUDING COURT ADVOCACY, 
COUNSELING, TRANSPORTATION TO AND FROM COURT, FOOD, AND DAY 
CARE SERVICES. OUR PROGRAM IS ONE OF ONLY 8 NATIONWIDE, AND 
RECEIVES SOME FEDERAL FUNDING FROM THE BUREAU OF JUSTICE 
ADMINISTRATION. 

I URGE THIS COMMITTEE TO MAKE MORE FUNDING AVAILABLE FOR 
COMPARABLE PROGRAMS. 

10) WOMEN'S STANDING IN SOCIETY . WHILE VIOLENCE AGAINST 
WOMEN IS THE MOST VISIBLE AND PERHAPS MOST ODIOUS FORM OF 
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN, IT IS LARGELY A SYMPTOM OF A 
BROADER REFUSAL BY THE SOCIETY WE LIVE IN TO RECOGNIZE THE 
HUMANITY AND DIGNITY OF WOMEN THAT DERIVES FROM A 
RECOGNITION OF THEIR EQUALITY. THIS DISCRIMINATION IS 
EMBODIED IN OUR VERY CONSTITUTION WHICH, EVEN AFTER 200 
YEARS, STILL REFUSES TO RECOGNIZE WOMEN'S EQUALITY. WOMEN 
ARE MISTREATED IN THE WORKPLACE, WITH LOWER WAGES, DIS- 
CRIMINATION IN HIRING AND PROMOTIONS, AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT. 
WOMEN DOMINATE THE RANKS OF THE POOR IN AMERICA — ROUGHLY 
TWO-THIRDS OF THOSE LIVING IN POVERTY ARE WOMEN. WOMEN 
REMAIN SORELY UNDERREPRESENTED IN PUBLIC OFFICE AND AT THE 
TOP OF OTHER SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS. AND TELEVISION AND OTHER 
MEDIA BOMBARD US WITH IMAGES OF WOMEN AS OBJECTS AND 
PROPERTY TO BE MANIPULATED BY MEN. UNTIL EVERY ASPECT OF 
OUR CULTURE THAT DENIGRATES WOMEN IS IDENTIFIED AND 



48 



ELIMINATED, WE CANNOT CLAIM ENOUGH PROGRESS. THIS WILL NOT 
BE A TRULY JUST SOCIETY UNTIL AMERICANS CONFRONT AND ROOT 
OUT THE DEEP SEATED AND SHAMEFUL ATTITUDES WHICH HAVE 
CONDONED AND ENCOURAGED VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN FOR TOO 
LONG. 

THANK YOU. 



49 

Chairman Miller. Thank you. 
Mr. Sears. 

STATEMENT OF ALAN E. SEARS, FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMISSION ON PORNOGRAPHY, 
LEGAL COUNSEL, CITIZENS FOR DECENCY THROUGH LAW, 
INC., SCOTTSDALE, AZ 

Mr. Sears. Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to appear 

today. .^, 

Very briefly, I have filed a lengthy written statement with nu- 
merous attachments which I would like to refer the committee to. 
Just as a little background, I was a city prosecutor. I dealt with 
victims of domestic violence. I was a Federal prosecutor. I prosecut- 
ed people in the organized crime distribution of obscene material. I 
dealt with pornography issues in an extensive way and worked 
with State prosecutors. 

From July of 1986 to the present, I have been— when the com- 
mission expired— I have been involved in traveling across the coun- 
try. I have been in 34 States. I have made 300 public appearances 
on related matters. I have met with hundreds of prosecutors, police 
officers, victims, victims assistance coordinators and others who are 
concerned with the problem of violence against women in our socie- 
ty and the lack of legal remedies. 

Earlier, actually last year, this committee, all the members and 
all the members of Congress, were provided with a copy of the final 
report of the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography. I am 
sure, as the members have reviewed that report, they have found 
that what the press accounts and the critics had to say about the 
report were substantially different from the true contents. 

One of the most important sections of that report was the ac- 
count of 300 courageous women who had the courage to do as the 
two women who were here earlier this morning did, to come for- 
ward and tell the story of their abuse, their silence, their shame, 
which in their life related to the abuse promulgated in part by por- 
nography. 

We do not speculate; we do not pretend to claim that pornogra- 
phy is the major cause, or the sole cause of domestic and other vio- 
lence against women. However, we know it is a real and significant 
and substantial cause. 

The 300 women that came before the commission, either in writ- 
ten form or in 100 personal interviews, and those that testified in 
person by the committee, were the subject of ridicule and shanie 
from the organized crime-backed pornography industry. I stated in 
my written statement and I make the statement here today: It is 
my opinion, based upon my law enforcement experience as a Feder- 
al prosecutor, chief of the criminal section in the U.S. Attorney's 
Office, as an assistant U.S. attorney, as a city prosecutor and now 
as an attorney in a public-interest law firm working full-time in 
this area, that there is no major interstate distributor of obscene, 
illegal material, that is not either a member, associate or otherwise 
affiliated with organized crime. 

I saw significant financial resources come to bear during the 
work of the commission to again attempt to silence those women 



50 

who would come forward. The women were told that they were 
"anecdotes" and I think if you read the accounts and even some of 
the local reports of the commission, you saw that the women were 
criticized as victims of alcohol abuse, victims of their own inability 
to cope with societal problems, and I think the women here this 
morning illustrated how they had been shuffled aside and were 
told by authority figures, by people in the enforcement system and 
elsewhere that their problems were somewhat of their own cre- 
ation. 

That is what we found to be the case with many of the women 
who were involved with the violence relating to pornography. 

The pornography industry views women as chattel. I think they 
view women as objects. They view them as property that can be 
traded and used and abused. 

In my brief statement and in the commission report, we detail at 
length the abuse of women in the production end of this industry. 
This is not a consensual business where people enter into an arms- 
length contract and agree to become engaged. I think there needs 
to be a significant concern for the women in the industry as a 
whole. There are bills before this Congress now that deal with 
some of those problems (S. 703/H.R. 1213). 

Secondly, I think we need to deal with some societal attitudes 
where we accept that it is an acceptable alternative for women to 
be engaged in this form of traffic in their flesh and that somehow, 
these women are viewed as "consenting adults", despite the record 
to the contrary. 

There are a very few number of women who perhaps have truly 
"consented" and are happy to be in "the business", but they are 
very minute in quantity. 

I want to talk for a few minutes about some of the kinds of 
things we learned in the commission about violence as it relates to 
some of the subjects here this morning: marital rape, and spousal 
abuse. 

We heard from many women about the kinds of things their hus- 
bands would do, their boyfriends would do; and I want to highlight 
a few of those for the committee's discussion this morning. 

First of all, in the public health realm, I know that many people 
in this room are probably aware, even here in Washington, D.C., of 
the so-called "adult bookstores." This speaker this morning says 
that an adult bookstore is inappropriately named. I think that is a 
kind term. I think they more appropriately are called "training 
centers for sexual abuse." 

We know that in those establishments, not only are women 
viewed as objects for abuse and for the pure sexual use and pleas- 
ure objects of men, but we know that many men go into these es- 
tablishments to engage in sexual relations. Here in Washington, 
D.C., I have personally been in these establishments. I have person- 
ally viewed the behavior that goes on. There are those who would 
like to say that this is a behavior limited to one segment of the 
community, to a particular sexual preference, such as a group of 
homosexual males, and therefore, because in the disrespectful view 
of those persons, they do not like that group of society, leave them 
to have their own problem. But we found this crosses all lines. Not 
only do we have people that belong to the homosexual minority in- 



51 

volved in abuse of themselves and others in these establishments; 
we have many heterosexual males who go into the establishments, 
have anonymous sexual relations through these holes in the wall 
with other males who go home to transmit whatever it is they 
catch, including sexually transmitted disease, AIDS, whatever, 
transmit this to their innocent wife, girlfriend or even their chil- 
dren. 

We had many accounts before the commission of exactly that 
kind of behavior. In the last year, I have met several persons who 
are dying of AIDS at this time. The source of that was the trans- 
mission through the pornographic industry, through the contact in 
the so-called "adult bookstores," which are viewed as just innocent 
fun in many of these communities. , . , t 

Women in our society are put at significant health risks, which I 
consider to be a form of violence, even though we do not hit them, 
we do not batter them. It is, perhaps, even more deadly. 

Then, as far as the more overt types of violence, we had many 
accounts of women that ranged from the simple use of pornogra- 
phy, thrusting it before them to humiliate them, to talk about how 
they do not look as beautiful as these other women look; why is it 
that you are not as pretty as this woman is; why, after you had 
those kids, did you gain that 30 pounds? You can lose it; she did; 
here is her story. Here is what women prefer to do. 

They read the polls, the surveys, the charts that are produced in 
pornography to tell them what "normal" is and they tell their 
spouse she is abnormal if she will not perform in that area. So we 
have the— what I would call "oral abuse," the destruction of the 
personality of a human being by the constant tearing down 
through the use of pornography. 

Then we move to the more violent. We have the male who brings 
this material and coerces his girlfriend or his wife or his date into 
engaging in behavior that is depicted in pornography. He explains 
it is normal and, through, perhaps, use of drugs, alcohol, other 
means, he works to lower the woman's inhibitions to cause her to 
engage in things that are not only physically harmful to her, harm- 
ful to her health, but very humiliatmg, and I think some of the 
women here this morning— I do not know if any pornography was 
ever involved in their relationships — talked about some of the 
kinds of sexual acts that husbands are known to do to their wives. 

Then we have even the worse, and that is the fellow— and we 
have many cases where they were beyond the stage of discussion, 
beyond the stage of convincing — who would, for example, tie their 
wives with the ropes, with the knots that they learned from por- 
nography. There are books on sale that my staff purchased here in 
Washington, D.C, called "How to Rape a Woman," and "How to 
Molest a Child." People, of course, argue that these are protected 
materials and should in no way be "censored." 

These materials tell us how to do various things to woman, how 
to abuse their bodies, how to tie them up, how to keep them from 
talking later, how to make yourself available to find victims and 
other means. We found hundreds of cases of males who acted out 
the material from pornography. 

I put in my statement a statement from Milwaukee City Police 
Officer, Michael Krzeninski, a detective with the Sexual Assault 



52 

Unit there, who has been working in the pornography field since 
the 1970s, as well as handling sexual assaults. Basically what Mike 
does, when he gets his caseload caught up in the sexual assault 
field, is go out and check out what is for sale in the pornographic 
outlets. 

Mike told the story last week to an audience in Milwaukee that I 
was present at — I talked to him at great length about how sexual 
assault has changed in recent years, both in the domestic field, in 
the date-rape situation, and in the stranger situation, where the 
victims now are being subjected to abuse that, in substantial ways, 
correlates to the abuse that is depicted in pornography. 

In fact, he began to see how the language that women were 
called during the rape situations began to even be the language 
that was the language of choice of the pornographers during that 
period of time. I do not like this term, but Mike said that, "We 
used to have what were called 'softcore' types of assaults," and now 
he sees an ever-increasing number of very violent, very brutal, 
very cruel assaults that go far beyond the more limited kinds of 
sexual abuse that would take place in earlier years. 

I would ask the committee to review the testimonies of many of 
these women and I would like to submit for the record Phyllis 
Schlafly's Book, "Pornography's Victims"— and I do not ask the 
committee to endorse anyone's politics, but Phyllis Schlafly had the 
interest to do what no one else in the country did. She took testi- 
monies of a number of the victims before the commission, and 
without any editorialization, reprinted the words of those coura- 
geous women, boys and girls, who were willing to come forward 
and tell it to the committee. 

[The book "Pornography's Victims" is retained in committee 
files.] 

I would like to submit that book for the record in this hearing. I 
did not submit it earlier. 

We found that pornography is used to lower the inhibitions of 
many of our victim children. In child pornography cases in Los An- 
geles County, police officers testified that since they began to ask 
the question, over 95 percent of the children involved in that activi- 
ty had had pornography used as part of the softening up or the in- 
hibition-lowering process to seduce them and induct them into this 
activity. 

You say, "What does this have to do with women?" Children 
grow up, and as former Congresswoman Holtzman, now district at- 
torney, just testified, a substantial number of the men who go on to 
be abusers were abused children themselves. Pornography plays a 
significant role in the training of our young people to become 
sexual abusers; trains young people to view women as objects; view 
women as something unworthy of respect. 

In the commission report, we detailed physical acts that involved 
the rape, battery, murder, torture, imprisonment — as I mentioned 
earlier, the transmission of sexually related diseases, masochistic 
self-harm, prostitution and others. Psychological harms detailed in 
the report included suicidal thoughts and behavior, fear and anxie- 
ty caused by seeing pornography, feelings of guilt and shame, fear 
of exposure through publication and display of materials, amnesia, 
denial, repression of abuse, nightmares, compulsive reenactment of 



53 

sexual abuse, inability to feel sexual pleasure outside of a context 
of domination and submission. 

We found feelings of sexual inadequacy, inferiority, degradation, 
substantial frustration with the legal system. You heard these 
women talk this morning about how they could not get relief from 
overt violence where they had broken furniture and blackened eyes 
and visible bruises. Think about the women who call the police, 
once they get the courage, and say, "My husband tied me up and 
did to me things from the videocassette he rented from the neigh- 
borhood store," and think of the ridicule and shame those women 
are subjected to once they get the courage and those that will not 
even consider it to be a real problem. 

Social harms included loss of jobs or promotions, sexual harass- 
ment at the work place, financial losses, defamation, loss of status 
in the community, the promotion of racial hatred, the loss of trust 
within the family. Obviously, the related divorces, the promiscuity, 
compulsive masturbation, prostitution and other sexual harass- 
ment. 

I think that one of the most significant things, and I compliment 
you, Mr. Chairman, for beginning to, as you have over the past 
years, continue to remove the veil of silence from the women of 
America and the abuse that is taking place. I believe that a coun- 
try without pornography would not be a perfect world and we 
would not eliminate all the problems that the witnesses have 
talked about and that you are concerned about, but I believe there 
would be a substantial reduction in the physical, psychological and 
social violence that occur to the women in our society. 

I believe a world without pornography would be one with less 
rape, less sex discrimination, less domestic violence, less date-rape, 
and certainly one that trains our children with a different view of 
women. 

As far as specific remedies, I think it is important that this Con- 
gress support the moves that have been labeled inappropriately as 
"extremist" moves to crack down against the organized crime dis- 
tribution of this material. I believe members of Congress should 
play a leadership role in no longer protecting the pornographers. 
Members of Congress should speak out and clearly delineate that 
those materials are not protected by the Constitution, and that is 
the focus of law enforcement, are not acceptable in our society and 
it is not an acceptable way to use the bodies of our women and chil- 
dren. 

I think it is demeaning to the Constitution of the United States 
to argue that this material has constitutional protection. In 1973, 
the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court said, "It's categorically 
settled this material has no such protection." 

There are civil rights remedies before this Congress that would 
allow women and children who have been victimized by pornogra- 
phers at the production end and at the consumption end who can 
show direct abuse— and this is not opening the floodgates to new 
litigation. They have all the same standards of proof that exist in 
any court, and if they cannot prove the nexus, their case fails. But 
I think it would be a significant thing to allow these women to 
have a remedy. (S. 703/H.R. 1213) 



54 

Current law provides no remedies for women in this area. We 
have many of the women who have been battered and abused, even 
at the production end, and there are no remedies at law. Most of 
these women do not escape from the abuse and have the courage to 
come forward until the one-year statute of limitations — which exist 
for most of the crimes, because if even they are criminalized, they 
are misdemeanors — exist. 

By the time these women have had enough support from women 
like those who testified earlier and can break out and speak out, 
the time for remedies is long gone, civil or criminal. 

Chairman Miller. I am going to have to ask you to summarize, 
Mr. Sears. 

Mr. Sears. I am completed at this point. I just thank you, Mr. 
Chairman, for your concern. 

[Prepared statement of Alan E. Sears follows:] 



A 



55 



Prepared Statement of Alan E. Sears, Legal Counsel, Citizens for Decency 

Through Law, Inc., Scottsdale, AZ 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Select Committee: 

Thank you for your invitation to appear before this 
Committee. My remarks will be brief and to the point. 

From 1981 to 1985, I was an Assistant United States Attorney 
and became Chief of the Criminal Section of the United States 
Attorneys Office for the Western District of Kentucky 
(Louisville). During that tenure, I successfully prosecuted on 
federal felony charges two of the largest distributors of 
obscenity in the world--the Cleveland based Sovereign News 
Company and General Video of America. 

From March 1985 to July of 1986, I was Executive Director of 
the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography. As Executive 
Director, I was responsible for selecting and supervising the 
staff, managing the six public hearings, preparation of the Final 
Report and oversight of all activities of the Commission. 

From July 1986 to the present, I have been involved with 
more than 300 public appearances, interviews, and training 
sessions in 34 states. I have met with hundreds of prosecutors. 
Justice Department officials, police officers, victims, victims 
assistance coordinators, care providing professionals, and other 
concerned citizens. In these past three years, I have 
interviewed scores of victims, victim family members, offenders 
and investigators. 

Each member of this Congress was provided a copy of the 
Final Report of the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography 
in July of 1986. As you and your staffs reviewed the document, I 



56 



am sure you found little resemblance to what its critics had said 
about it before release. 

During the course of eighteen months, the Commission 
received and reviewed copies of every published study from the 
social sciences, every published Law Review article on related 
subjects, hundreds of submitted written statements, thousands of 
citizen letters, listened to the testimony of more than 200 
witnesses at six public hearings across the United States 
conducted in Washington, D.C., Chicago, Illinois, Houston, Texas, 
Los Angeles, California, Miami, Florida, and New York, New York. 
The witnesses represented every relevant profession, 
philosophical viewpoint and interest. The Commission and its 
staff interviewed, indepth, more than 100 persons who reported 
victimization . 

This morning I want to review briefly with you the key 
findings of the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography as 
they are pertinent to the focus of this hearing. 

1 . Content - 

The Commission found that there was a dramatic change in the 
content of pornography from 1968 when a previous Commission 
studied the subject and the world of 1985. The content has 
deteriorated to be extremely explicit depictions of 
sadomasochism, torture, racism, rape, bestiality, and many other 
incidents of degradation, subordination, humiliation and 
victimization of women. "Adult" material is now, almost 
exclusively, hard-core pornography. In 1968, these materials 
were only a minute fraction of the commonly available commercial 



57 



pornography market. The Attorney General's Commission staff 
conducted a survey of the contents of sixteen pornographic 
outlets in six major cities with spot checks all across the 
country. The study conducted under rigid social science 
practices confirmed the suggestions of the witnesses that the 
most significant portion of the commercial pornography market 
today centers on degradation, subordination and violence. 

2. Consumers - 

In 1968, the first Commission to study this subject on a 
national level commissioned original research to determine who 
the consumers of pornography were. In Technical Volume VI of 
that 1970 Commission Report, the finding was that the largest 
category of consumers were adolescents. In examining social 
science research conducted in the 1970' s, 1980 's and reviewing 
the real world experiences as reported by thousands of persons, 
it appears that the conclusions of that earlier Commission are 
still valid in that the largest category of consumers of 
pornography in America are minors. This is in spite of laws and 
practices by distributors that prohibit initial sale of this 
material to children. 

The total effect as to consumption by children is unknown, 
however, both the early Commission and the 1986 Commission 
concluded that pornography could have a serious harmful effect on 
the mind of a child. It was a conclusion of the Commission that 
pornography when exposed to young children as it is in America 
today, could have a substantial impact upon the way they viewed 
sex, marriage, women, and the conduct of men in our society 
toward these important social relationships. 



58 



3. Size Of The Problem - 

When the earlier Commission concluded its work, it found 
that the pornography industry only involved a couple hundred 
million dollars. In the 1980' s, this industry has magnified to 
the point that reasonable estimates suggest the industry handles 
somewhere in the neighborhood of eight billion dollars annually. 
Although the majority of this cash flow is probably laundered 
money from narcotics, gambling, and prostitution, the actual 
consumer expenditures still amounts to probably a couple billion 
dollars, when considering all forms of pornography such as men's 
magazines, hard-core films, video cassettes, magazines, peep 
shows, cable, subscription TV, and dial-a-porn. The problem of 
pornography consumption and access to pornography has magnified 
tremendously in that pornography is now available in virtually 
every neighborhood through video cassette rental outlets, cable 
and pay television access, and "dial-a-porn" telephonic 
communications . 

It is noted that "dial-a-porn" telephonic communications are 
intensely targeted toward teenages who consume millions of 
dollars of this material annually. I would simply ask this 
Committee to take a few minutes to listen to some of the 
recordings of the material taped by the Commission staff produced 
by the "dial-a-porn" distributors that target teenage boys and 
teach them on the telephone how to abuse their girl friend, their 
mother, their sister and other women in our society. 



59 



A. The Public Health - 

The Commission concluded that there are many serious public 
health concerns that accompany the distribution of pornography 
that drastically affect the health of women in this country. One 
of the things that accompanies every so-called "adult bookstore" 
is the peep-show booths wherein men enter, deposit quarters to 
watch fragments of films, and then engage in anonymous sexual 
activity with persons on the other side of the booth. It was 
found that many of these men engage in relations with as many as 
three or four other persons a night. It was further found that 
contrary to popular belief, this is not limited to one segment of 
the sexual preference of our society but indeed includes many 
heterosexual males, includes many married men who after having 
anonymous sexual activity and exposing themselves at great risk 
to sexually transmitted diseases including Acquired Immunity 
Deficiency Sjmdrome (AIDS) , then return to their homes and 
further transmit these exposed diseases to their innocent family 
and girl friends. A significant number of women reported that 
they were unaware that their spouse or boyfriend frequented such 
establishments and engaged in such sexual practices until after 
they had contracted diseases that had no explained source and 
then were subject to admission by the male as to the source of 
contact. Attached hereto is the Statement of Commission member 
Park Elliott Dietz, M.D., M.A. , PH.D. (AGCP: Vol. I, pp. 37-53; 
Rutledge Hill, pp. 487-92) regarding seven significant public 
health concerns relating to pornography in our society. You will 
note that each of these concerns is of particular concern to the 



60 



health and safety of women. (Note: the Final Report of the 
A.G.'s Commission on Pornography (of 1986), is referenced in the 

official version as "Vol. I, pp. ", and in the privately 

printed version as "Rutledge Hill, pp. ".) 

5. Constitution and Legal Issues - 
The material which is commonly called "hard-core" 
pornography, obscene material and child pornography, has never 
had protection under the First Amendment of the Constitution of 
the United States. In explaining how to define the lines of 
demarcation, the United States Supreme Court in 1973 stated that 
it "categorically settled" that such material was not protected 
speech. Obscene material and child pornographic material are 
akin to many other types of speech that are not protected under 
the Constitution such as libel and slander, statements in 
furtherance of conspiracies, statements in writing relating to 
mail, consumer, or wire fraud. 

It was further found by the Commission that when 
constitutionally sound laws are enacted by legislatures with 
adequate penalties, and are effectively enforced by police and 
prosecutors, that such laws work. Entire communities in the 
United States, including major and medium size metropolitan 
areas, have rid themselves of all pornographic outlets and all 
commercial sales of illegal obscene material. Cities that have 
been successful in this area include Fulton County (Atlanta) , 
Georgia, Cincinnati, Ohio, Newport, Kentucky, Arlington County, 
Virginia, (right across the river from where we sit today), 
Buffalo and Westchester, New York, Ft. Wayne, Indiana, the entire 



61 



State of Utah, New Orleans, Louisiana, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 
and Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. Miami, Florida has gone from twenty 
three hard-core outlets to eight in the last few years with 
enforcement, and Charlotte, North Carolina, and Norfolk, 
Virginia, are virtually free of hard-core material at this time. 

It was noted, however, that on the federal level at the time 
of the Commission's work that the United States Department of 
Justice had done little to go after the major distributors of 
this material on an interstate level in the past fifteen years, 
with the notable, and successful, exception of the MIPORN cases 
of the Miami Strike Force. 

6. Organized Crime - 

It was the Commission's conclusion that there is virtually 
no distribution of obscene, illegal material on a significant 
multi-million dollar, interstate level that is not controlled 
directly or indirectly by members, associates, or other 
affiliates of organized crime. The related victimization of 
women and the crimes relating to pornography and other organized 
crime use of pornographic profits are almost numberless. Such 
harms to our society and to the women of our society include 
harms relating to prostitution, damage to families and women 
include gambling, murder, acts of physical violence, extortion, 
public corruption, and many other crimes, as well as the obvious 
strain on the family by increased divorces and sexual diseases. 

7. Social Science Evidence - 

The Commission was very cautious in its review of social 
science findings in that the Commission concluded that social 



ftn-7R/4 n R8 - ii 



62 



science could not provide "definitive" proof on the areas in 
question. The Commission divided the literature and the analysis 
of pornography, into five categories. The first category was 
child pornography, and the Commission had no difficulty in 
establishing that this material was harmful. The second area the 
Commission examined was material defined as "sexually violent 
material." This material involves the sexualization of violence. 
The Commission found, based upon the literature, that such 
material had an impact on our society in many significant ways, 
including acceptance of rape myths, degradation of the class and 
status of women, that it lead to the modelling effect (which 
suggest that once a viewer sees items or activities depicted, 
that the individual tends to act out some of the imagery) , and 
other effects on family and society. The Commission had no 
trouble in finding that negative effects were found to have been 
demonstrated and quoted at length from the work of numerous 
researchers. The third category the Commission dealt with was 
sexual activity without violence but with degradation, 
submission, domination, or humiliation. The Commission made the 
same findings based upon social science research as previously 
stated for violent material. The Commission found substantially 
less harm for material that contained sexual activity without 
violence, degradation, submission, domination, or humiliation or 
mere nudity without force, coercion, sexual activity, or 
degradation. A recent study of non-violent materials finds that 
the Commission might fairly be criticized for understating the 
evidence of harm previous found by social scientists. Dr. James 



63 



Weaver of the University of Kentucky sets out his original 
research and analyses the work of other researchers in an 
unpublished report entitled, "EFFECTS OF PORTRAYALS OF FEMALE 
SEXUALITY AND VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ON PERCEPTIONS OF WOMEN" 
submitted in July, 1987, to Indiana University. Dr. Weaver's 
conclusion and sunnnary, set out at pages 85-91 of his full 
report, is attached hereto and made a part of this testimony, 
with the consent of Dr. Weaver. I ask that this summary be 
printed in the record as part of my testimony, since this 
information is not in print for access to the public. 

8. Production And Distribution - 

The Commission found that the industry's abuse of the 
performers was systematic and incredible. Women without any 
concern for their health and safety were subjected to multiple 
acts of prostitution with multiple partners in very short periods 
of time. No precautions are taken by the "industry" to protect 
the health of women in any significant fashion. Attached hereto 
is an article written on behalf of the Commission relating to the 
use of performers in commercial pornography. (AGCP: Vol. I, 
837-900; Rutledge Hill, pp. 224-45.) 

9. Forms Of Victimization - 

As I stated earlier, the Commission received hundreds of 
accounts of victimization. Subsequent to the Commission's work, 
I have received several hundred additional accounts both in 
written form, interview form, and from personal investigative 
experience. I have talked to countless police officers, social 
services workers, family counselors, ministers, priests, and many 



64 



other professionals relating to abuses relating to pornography. 
The Commission in its Report appended brief extracts of some of 
the accounts received by the Commission, which is attached 
hereto. (AGCP: Vol. I, pp. 767-835; Rutledge Hill, pp. 197-223.) 
Harms found by the Commission were divided into three categories: 
physical harms, psychological harms, and social harms. 
Enumerated harms included under the physical categony of rape, 
both the force against women in the industry and of persons who 
were subjected to the use of pornography in numerous ways. Det. 
Michael Krzeninski with the Sexual Assault Unit of the Milwaukee 
City Police Department reported to me just last week: "In the 
early 1980' s, sexual assaults encountered in Milwaukee were 
"soft-core" type of assaults. There wasn't a lot of abuse of the 
victim. Now, rape victims are suffering more and more 
degradation and abuse by men who are imitating what they saw in 
hard-core pornography." Krzeninski told me how victims 
identified publications that were 

produced at the time of the rape, phrases were used that were 
consistent with what was then commercially available in the local 
Milwaukee pornographic outlets, and other evidence of modelling 
effect. Many victims of rape have given similar accounts to me 
personally. Another form of rape is that of the spousal rape 
where a person married to the victim acted out acts involved in 
pornography. There were many other physical harms that would not 
necessarily meet the legal definition for spousal rape that 
involve physical violence against one married to the offender as 
a result of pornography. Other physical harms included forced 



65 



sexual performance and sadism reported by scores of women. I 
believe this is one of the most significant occurrences in 
relation to pornography. Other physical acts included battery, 
torture, murder, imprisonment, transmission of sexually related 
diseases, masochistic self-harm, prostitution, and others. 
Psychological harms included suicidal thoughts and behavior, fear 
and anxiety caused by seeing pornography, feelings of guilt and 
shame, fear of exposure through publication or display of 
pornographic materials, amnesia and denial and repression of 
abuse, nightmares, compulsive reenactment of sexual abuse and 
inability to feel sexual pleasure outside of a context of 
dominance and submission, inability to experience sexual pleasure 
and feelings of sexual inadequacy, feelings of inferiority and 
degradation, feelings of frustration with the legal system, abuse 
of alcohol and other drugs. Social harms included loss of job or 
promotion and sexual harassment, financial losses, defamation, 
and loss of status in the community, promotion of racial hatred, 
loss of trust within a family, divorce, promiscuity, compulsive 
masturbation, prostitution, and sexual harassment in the 
workplace. Rather than spending a great deal of time speaking 
about individual examples of these, the words of the women speak 
for themselves. I think one of the most significant things that 
the Commission did was to remove the veil of silence from the 
women of America. We now know that thousands upon thousands of 
women have been battered and abused as a direct consequence of 
pornography. 



66 



It is my belief and the belief of the Attorney General's 
Commission on Pornography that pornography alone is not the sole 
cause of sexual assault upon women in this country or many of the 
other acts of physical, psychological, or social violence that 
occur to women. However, it is known that the effects of 
pornography are significant. It is the belief of the Commission 
and myself that a world without pornography would be a better 
world, a world with less rape, less sex discrimination, less 
violence, less rape, etc. 

Respectfully submitted, 

ALAN E. SEARS 
Legal Counsel 
Citizens for Decency through Law, Inc. 

[Final report of the Attorney General's Commission on Pornogra- 
phy, including Chapter 16, Victim Testimony" and Chapter 17, 
"The Use of Performers in Commercial Pornography," and a state- 
ment of Elliott Dietz, M.D., M.P.H., Ph.D. is retained in Committee 
files.] 



67 



irrECTS or poutravals or rtxALB SBiOAtitt and 

VIOLBHCB ACAIMST MOMBM OM rB»CBPTIOH« OF MOMBII 



Jam* •. M**v«t. Ill 



Sub«ltt«d to th« faculty of tho Ci«d««t« School 

In partial fulflllawnt of tha raquiraaiaata 

of tha daaraa 

Doctor of Phlloaophy 

in tha Maaa Coaaunlcatlona Pro9raa> 

Indiana Unlvaralty 



July 1967 




68 



(ul 



Acc«pt*d by th« CradiMta racwlty. ladlaaa ltalv«r«tty. la p«rtlat 
flllMni of ti» f«<iulr«Mat* of Ik* «»9E«« of Doctoc of Philosophy. 



Disarrtatloo CeaHitt««i 



Or. DoK SillMaai Cb«lK««a 



Dr. tlchard C. r«9li 



Juno 5. 1987 

Indian* Ualvaralty 
Blooalnqton, Indiana 



Or. Stav«b/j. 



JL^=^ 



•banMB 




69 



Ch«pt*r Pour 
Olacuaalon 

TiM findlnsa ahow that btlaf aapoaur* to axplicltly aaaual and 
vlolant Madia portrayala la capabla of Inducing aubatantlal ahlfta In 
<•) 9«n*r«l paccaptual dlapoaltlona toward woaan and wmn and (b) 
•ttltudaa toward pualahaant o( ■ convlctad raplat. Mora laportantly, 
tha data blghllgbt tha fact that aspoaura to aaaual ly aapllclt and 
■•xually vlolant aadla daplctloaa can ylald atrlklngly dlCfarant 
parcaptual and dlapoaltlonal conaaquancaa . In ganacal, tha avldanca 
auggaata that aaaually aapllclt thaaaa aoat atrongly laCluanca 
paccaptlona aaaoclatad with aaauallty (a. 9., parmlaalvanaaa) , wharaaa 
prado«lnantly vlolant thaaaa impact Mora ganaral parcaptlona. 

■pacifically, tha data ahow that aapoaura to nonvlolant aaaually 
aapllclt aatariala can advaraaly influanca parcaptlona of tha 'aaaual 
racaptlvity' of woawn without aff acting othac paraonallty aaaaaamanta. 
Thia affact waa aoat pronouacad for judgaanta of wowan who aanlfaat 
charactarlatlca typically aaaoclatad with tha aubjacta' paar group 
(a.g., ago, attractlvanaaa, ato.) and charactarlatlca aaaoclatad with 
aaaual raatrlctlvanaaa (a.g., aaaually conaarvatlva and Inaaparlancad) . 
Indapandant of aubjact gandar, aapoaura to tha two aaparlaaatal 
condltlona Involving nonvlolant aaaually aapllclt aatarlala had 
aaaantlally no Influanca on parcaptlona of tha aacaaalvanaaa or 
plaaaantnaaa of thaaa woaan. lowavar. tha aapoaura traataanta did 
produca ahlfta In parcaptlona of tha parmlaalvanaaa and aaaartlvanaaa of 
tha aaaually nonparmlaalva faaala paaca. And, aa aapactad, algnlflcant 
gandar dlffarancaa wara avldant. 

Coaparad with man who vlawad tha nautral aatarlala, tboaa aapoaad 
to althar tha conaanaual or f aaala-lnatlgatad aapoaura condition 
attrlbutad aignlf Icantly graatar parmlaalvanaaa to tha nonparmlaalva 
taaala paara. Thoaa in tha f amala-inatlgatad condition alao vlawad tha 
paar faaMlaa aa laaa aaaartiva. Thia pattarn of parcaptual raaponaaa la 
quit* conaiatant with avldanca from aavaral invaatigationa (a.g., 
Slllmann, 4 Bryant, 1982, 19fi4, la praaa) and with tha notion that 



70 



•■posur* to ■•xually aapllclt th«M** r**ult* In • qancxal *los*-of- 
r«ap«ct* (or f«a«l« aaaual autonoary and ••l(-d«t«railniaa. Apparently. 
Matching portrayal* of Intlmata hotaroacKual bahavlora Mada concapta 
aaaoclatad with (aaala aaaual proailaculty and parvlaalvanaaa 
particularly accaaalbl* (or tha sala aubjacta. Than, la a aaparata 
contaxt, thaaa concapta advaraaly a((actad aubaaquant ]ud9aantB of tha 
paar-9roup tmmmlm*. In a racant aaaay. OlaMond (ISaSI aakadi 'Doaa th« 
■ala vlawar ralotarprat avan poaltlva l*a9aa o( woaia n through oppraaalva 
coovantlona by. (or aaaapla, aaauMlng that any nakad ««o«an la 
avallabla?" (p. 57). Thaaa flndlnga aug^aat that thla aay ba tha caaa. 

Tha parcaptual raaponaaa of (aaala aub)acta occaalonad by aipoaura, 
to tha nonvlolant aasually aapllclt thaaaa wara qulta dlffarant. 
Spadflcally, tha data ahow that (aaala aubjacta aipoaad to tha 
conaanaual aax aatarlala attrlbwtad th« lowaat lavala of paralaalvaoaaa 
and aaaartlvanaaa to tha noap«r«laalva (aaala paara. Ona aaplaaatloa o( 
thaaa (Indlnga, auggaatad by Myar, Bodanhauaan, and Gorman (198SI, la 
that thay radact a tandancy (or woaian to raact da(aoal«aly to public 
axhlbltlona o( (aaala aaxual objactldcatloa. lacauaa o( traditional 
•mx rola aoclallaatlon. It la arguad, woman racognlta tha advaraa 
parcaptual and bahavloral coaaaquancaa that aasually aapllclt madia can 
produca (CrlCdtt, 1973) and, la raaponaa, attrlbuta B«ra poaltlva 
charactarlatlca to tbalr paara. Bowavar, tha (act that (amala aubjacta 
raapondad with aoma lndl((aranca to tha mora obJactKylng, (amala- 
Inatlgatad anpoaura »atarlala raqulraa (urthar aaaalnatlon. 

Ona apaculatlon la that tha (amala aubjacta. unllka thalr aala 
countarparta, parcalvad dlatlnct dl((arancaa In tha cootant of tha 
conaanaual and famala-lnatlgatad condition matarlala. ror aaaaipla. thay 
■ay hava ragardad tha algal flcanca o( tha daplctlon* o( woman aagarly 
aaaklng aaaual andaavora praaantad In tha (amala-lnatlgatad mataiiala aa 
unraallatlc — or at laaat Inappllcabla to parcaptlona o( thamaalvaa or 
thalr paara--and, conaaquantly. raapondad with IndKf aranca. On tha 
othar hand, tha conaanaual matarlala could hava baao aaan aa aora aalf- 
ralavant and aaaually aacltlng. If, m» la o(tan aotad, 'romantic lova* 
la a critical coaponant govarnlng (amala aaaual caaponalvanaaa (a. 9.. 



71 



Carroll. Volk, « iyda, l»«5l •t«ln«», 1980). th«o •apoaur* to th« 
••••tnfly erotic, Mutually ploaaurabl* a«>ual thaMa daplctad In tha 
cooaaaaual aaa coodltlon could ba»a lad tha faaala aubjacta to vlaw 
aaauallty aora [>oaltlvaly (Mlahnoff. 197«). Oodar aucb circuaatancaa. 
tha attrlbutioB to paac-group (aaalaa of lot»ar lavala of paralaal vanaaa 
aod aaaartlvaoaaa could bo •■ ampraaaioa of tha foMla aubjacta* own 
••xual iBtaraata. Uafortunataly, tbo validation of th«a« apM;ulatlona 
la bayond tb« acopo of thia Invaatlgatloa. 

Conalatant with tb* notlo* of badooic cootraatiog (Baron, 1979), 
tha data ravaal a ganaral tondoncy for aubjacta to porcalva othora In • 
Daqativa aannar following avpoauro to OMpllcitly vlolont or otharwlaa 
osplaaaant Mdia daplctlona. ror both mIo and f*»al« aubjacta, 
watchlDf altbar tbo sala-ooorcod nax (l.o., acqualntanc* rapa) or 
arotlcliad-violanca U.o.. •alaahar* filM) Mtariala produced aubaaquant 
parcaptlona of tha nonporviaaiva faaala paara aa laaa plaaaant and 
Infiocant. ■owovar, thia nagattva parcaptual blaaing did not caadlly 
9«oarali*a to porcaptiona aaaociatod with aasual par»laaivanaaa or 
aubalaalvaoaaa. Aaong aala aubjocta, for •aan|>lo, tha nogativa 
dlatortlng affact pcojoctod by tha targat appropriatanaaa parapactiva na 
raaultlnf froa Mpoaura to altbar of tha aosually vlolant conditiona «*aa 
not avldont. In fact. Ml* aubjacta who vlawad th« arotictsad-vlolaoca 
natarlala raportod anbancod parcaptlona of tha aaaactlvanaaa of tha 
nooparviaaiva faanla paara. 

Intaraatlnqly, a diffarant pattarn of affacta waa avidant for 
faatala aubjacta. Liha thalr mmlm countarparta, woaMn who vlawad tha 
arotlclaad-vlolanca natarlala raportad parcaptlona of tha aaxual 
parslaalvanaaa and aubalaal vanaaa of tha nonpormiaatva faatala paara that 
appaarad unaffoctad by tha napoaura ttaataant. Aa napactad, bowavar, 
f^ala aubjacta oapoaad to tha rathar raaliatlc acquaintanca rapa 
dcplctlona (i.a., »ala-coarcad aaa condition) judgad thaaa woaan to b« 
alqnif icantly aora par«laaiva and aaaartlva. Thia pattarn of raaulta la 
•iBllar to thoaa racantly raportad by Rratka 11985) and providan furthar 
avldanca of awdla activated parcaptual dlatancinq conalatant with tha 
■juat world* hypothaala (Larnar, Millar, k Bolnaa. 197ft). According to 



72 



thla notion, paopla ar* Motlvatad to vlaw tha world aa a controllabla 
placa whara bad thinga happen only to bad people. Conaequantly , whan 
obaarvlng tha alafortunaa of another, individuala are thouqht to blana 
tha othar'a actlona or character for brln9ln9 on the event. For fcaiale 
aubjecta, aa hae bean au99cated by othera (Wyar. Bodenhauaen. t Corman, 
198S), the aale-coerced aea condition aMtaclala could have Made 
acceaalble conatructa aaaoclated with the derogation of the feaale 
vlctlaa that reaalnad to adveraely Influence aubaequent perceptlona of 
the Bonperalaalve female peera. 

The analyaea of the generalised dlatance acorea provided 
additional InforiMtlon about the laq>act of the espoaure treataienta on •• 
]ud9*enta of othera. Significant perceptual profile ahifta were evident 
for the nonperalaalve feaale peera. Ipeclf Ically. coiapared with the 
Beutral espoaure condition, all four eaperlaMntal condltlona ahlftad 
perceptlona of theae %K>aratt toward thoa* of the acaually proailacuoua 
(PROM) eaeaplara. A alallar, but weaker, ahlft toward the aexually- 
•ubalaalve <8EX8UB) eseaplar waa alao evident. Intereatinfly, an 
equally atrong ahlft toward the counter -proalacuoua (CPROM) exeaiplars 
waa evident for aale aubjecta' perceptlona of the nonpermlaalve nonpeer 
tmm»l»». Perceived aexual peralaslveneaa waa a dlatlngulshlng 
characterlatlc of all three of theae eceaiplara auggeatlng that the 
aexual content of the eapoaura atateriala activated conatructa within 
thla dlMenalon. Eapoaura to the ■ale-coerced and erotlclsed-vlolence 
condltlona alao ahlftad perceptlona of the nonperalaalve fea^le peera 
toward thoae of the eatraaely aaaertlve counter-aubailaalve (C8UB) 
eae«plara. Thla effect wmm particularly atrong for a^le aubjecta who 
viewed the erotlclaed-vlolence Materlala. A aiaillar ahlft waa alao 
evident for perceptlona of the nonperviaalve nonpeer feaalea. 
Additionally, auch eapoaure ahlftad perceptlona of pemlaalve nonpeer 
'•*•!•• toward thoae of the counter-proailacuoua exeaplara. Theae 
flndlnga auggeat that conatructa aaaoclated with feaiale aaaertlveneaa 
rather than feaiale aubalaal veneaa. were awde mre acceaalble by eapoaure 
to the aeaually violent eatarlala. Additionally, expoaure to portrayala 
of woaien taking the Initiative In aeaual ancountara ( f eaala-lnetlgated 



73 



condition) •hlft*<l perceptions of th« ■•!•• toward that of th« countar- 
pioatacuoua »ala aiaaplar. 

riMlly. tha rindlnqa cavaal that axpoaura to aaplctlona of woaan 
aa9arly and Indiacrialftataly aaaJilng and participating In aasual 
andaavora Influancad punltlva judfaanta a9alnat a coavlctad raplat auat 
atrongly. Subjacta axpoaad to tha faitala-lnatlgatad Mtarlala, coaparad 
to thoaa Id tha othar conditions, racoaiaandad slgalf Icaatly shertar 
parloda of Incarcaratloa. Thla affact waa aqual for both san and woaan. 
Additionally, subjacts «lie vlawad tha a«la coarcad sas and aretlcliad 
vlolanca condltlona. co*parad to thoaa la tha nautral condition, also 
racoaMaodad laaa pualshaaat for rapa. Brnpoaura to tba oonaanaual sas 
axposura Mtarlala did not sl9al(lc*"tly Impact punltlva ]ud9Mnta, 
howavac. Mora li^ortantly, tha raaulta of a ra9raaslo« aaalyals 
lllustrata that, altbowfh ajipoaaro to both aaiually aspllclt aad vlolaat 
portrayala iMy produca alallar judfsants of tha rapist, thasa 
aaaassawnts sra boat pradlctad by connuMptlon of tha f SMSla-lnatlgatad 
■atatlala and parcaptlona of both aan and woaan aa p«r*laalva and 
axcaaalva. Ceiwtar to tha projactlona of tha targat approprlatanaas 
parspactlva, tha parcalvad subslsslvanass of woMsn did aot Influanca 
thaaa judgwanta appreciably. It Must ba racognitad. bowavar. that tha 
rathar aaall Mwunt of variance explained by the aodel highlights the 
cosplemlty sssoclsted vlth dependent ■easures that lavelva the 
cotitoundlng of aeiual and violent behavior. 

Taken together, these data Indicate that the dlepoaltlonal and 
parcaptual conaaquencea of viewing aasually aipllclt awdla daplctlona 
are *ucb aore eHtenslve than proposed by soaie (cf. Doonerstein k Lint. 
190*. Deceaberi Llna. 190S> Stelae*. 1980). Clearly, thaaa flndlnga are 
laconalatant with the essertloe that no 111 affects reeult fro* exposure 
to depletions of noncoercive, 'erotic* sexual actlvltlaa (Donnarstaln. 
19846). Purtharaora, thaaa flndlnga show that expoaura to aadls 
daplctlona which, by design, are Intended to arouse, frighten, and 
dlaguat can activate cognitions that enhance the perception of the 
negative characteristics of others. The dsta also suggest, however, 
that the ability of auch aadla daplctlona to activate cognltlona 



74 



•■•ociated vlth the degradation or aubjuqatlon of wonan la far laaa 
pronouncad than earllar thaorlsad (Donnarataln 4 Mm, 1986, Daceabar; 
Lint, 198S). It could ba arguad, of couraa. that tha typ* of satarlala 
uaad and tha duration of tha axpoaura traataiant In thla atudy war* 
Inaufflclent to paralt tha 'aqgraaalva cua valua* of tha nonparalaaiva 
fasala paara to ba condltlonad or aodalad and, conaequantly , did not 
provlda a fair taat of tha tar9at approprlatanaaa conaldaratlona. Such 
a clal*. howavar, doaa not appaar juatlflad. Cooipared with tha atlKuli 
utlllsad by Donnarataln and Barkowltt (1981), for aaaapla, tha axpoaura 
traataanta of thla atudy vara ovar twica aa long and, in tha caaa of tha 
■ala-coarcad aax and arotlclsad-vlolanca conditiona, involvad at laaat ^ 
aa Buch violanca. Tha aaaual contant of tha atinuli did diffar, 
howavar. Spacif Ically, tha aatarlala ua«d in thla invaatigation appaar 
to bav* involvad aubatantlally laaa aaaual contant than tha 'aggraaalva- 
pornography' a*ployad by Doonaratain aad Barkowlti to oparationalisa a 
*rap*-Byth* dapiction. Daaplta tha clala that *it la tha violanca, 
«#hathar or not acco«panlad by aas, that haa tha mat daaaging affact* 
(Donnarataln t Lina, 1986, Oacaabar, p. S9), tha findinga of tha prcaant 
invaatigation olaacly indlcata that tha conaaquancaa of aapoauta to 
aaaually aapllcit vatariala that ara davoid of violant contant at* in 
naad of furthar conaldaratlon. 

In aua, tha findinga of thla Invaatigation atrongly auggaat that 
tha thaoratical foraulatlon that vlawa tha advaraa impact of wmii» 
■aaaagaa on parcaptiona of «#oa*n aa raaultlng froa tha aodallng of 
violant bahaviora ia not aa applicable aa aoaia hava aaauaad (l.a., 
Donnarataln 4 Llna, 1986, OacaaOiar). Indeed, the projectiona of tha 
target approprlataneaa parapective appear such too raatrictive to 
eaplaln the coaiplea pattern of effecta of thla Inveatlqatlon. Inataad, 
the data lend coneiderable aupport to a parapective baaed on aoclal 
cognition conaldaratlona. Thia parapective recognlsea that expoaure to 
both aaaually aapllcit and/or violent aatarlala can activate cognitive 
conatructa that Mediate aubaequcnt perceptiona, diapoaltlona, and 
bahaviora. Specifically, thia Inveatigatlon revealed considerable 
perceptual and diaposl tlonal effecta that renained up to one-half hour 



75 



after th« brlaf •xpoaut* trMt»«nt. Th« p«r«l«t«oc« of theaa affacta 
ovat tlM ar«] thair laalatanca to coaipatlng atlmll taMlna to ba 
dataralnad. bowavar . 

»aaad on tha fliKllnqa of thla Inwaatlsatlon, two Unas of Inquiry 
for futura raaaarch appaar of particular Intaraat. rutura raaaarch 
•i9ht aaaalna «l^athar tha advaraa parcaptual conaaqaancaa occaalooad by 
aapoaura to saBually aapllclt aatarlala fanarallsaa to produco 
bahavlotal affacta In Intargandar aoclal Intaractlona. For axaaf)!*, th« 
fact that MM oftan alaparcalva tha otharwlaa frlaiMlly bahavlera of 
vcaan aa aaductlva haa baan aatabllahad (Abbay, 1982; Coodchllda • 
lallBan, 1984). Doaa prior axpoaura to aasually aapllclt satarlala 
aaaq9arata thla tandancy and. If ao, with what affacta? Additionally, 
futura raaaarch ahoold aaplora tha lapact of prior aapoaura to aaaaally 
aapllclt aod vlolant aatarlala on parcaptlona of faaala vlctlaa of 
Bonvlolant ■lafortunaa. Many crltlca hava au99aatad that tha aoat 
daaka9ln9 affacta of auch Matarlala ara arldant In tha 111 traat«ant of 
wo««n, al^ly b^rauaa of thalr fandar, la avaryday clrcuaatancaa la.«., 
aaaual haraaaaant, amployaant dlacrlalnatlon, and acoao«lc 
aaploltatlon) . Do cognltlva conatructa aaaoclatad with faaiala 
paralaalvanaaa, ooca aada accaaalbla by aapoaura to aaaually aapllclt 
Matarlala, fanarallaa to Influancra parcaptlona outalda tha dlract raala 
of husan aaauallty? Clvan tha aaaaln^ly oblqultoua natura of both 
aaaual ly aapllclt and vlolant aatarlala In our aoclaty. additional 
raaaarch aaaalnlnq tha lapact of aapoaura to auch daplctlona appaara 
clearly juatiflad. 



76 

Chairman Miller. Thank you. Thank you very much for your 
testimony and your contribution this morning. 
Ms. Hart. 

STATEMENT OF BARBARA J. HART, ESQ., STAFF COUNSEL, 
PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, 
READING, PA 

Ms. Hart. Thank you, good morning, Chairman Miller. Thank 
you for the opportunity, and I thank the staff for all the work you 
have done, and thank you for convening this hearing. 

I am going to read my testimony, otherwise, I fear that I will be 
too verbose. It is my habit. 

There is a mounting crisis in this country resulting from the fail- 
ure of the law and our system of justice to safeguard women from 
the life-endangering and terrorizing assaults of men. I will specifi- 
cally address the failure of the law to protect women who are 
abused by their husbands, partners or other familial intimates. 

Many civil and criminal statutes designed to protect the victims 
of domestic violence and to deter batterers from future violence 
have been adopted over the course of the last 11 years. Although 
they have provided relief and protection to millions of women and 
children, it cannot be said that these laws have achieved the prom- 
ise of protection and deterrence for which they were promulgated. 

Let me first direct your attention to civil restraining or protec- 
tion-order legislation, tailored specifically, again, to stop domestic 
violence and to protect victims. These statutes were adopted in 
most states in the nation. In some jurisdictions, and for some 
women, they have been extremely helpful, but for too many 
women, these laws have been useless. 

The failure of protection-order statutes can be attributed both to 
drafting and enforcement problems. I, as one of those drafters, 
must confess that I facilitated the too-narrow drafting about which 
I am not going to speak, hoping that others who have done so will 
take whatever action is necessary to broaden the language of stat- 
utes in order to provide the protection that is necessary for bat- 
tered women and children. 

First of all, .most protection-order statutes too narrowly define 
the class of abused persons eligible for relief. For example, some re- 
quire that the victim must be married to be included in the class of 
protectable people. Others require current cohabitation. Old 
women and men who are abused in the home by caretakers are 
often ineligible if not related to the abuser. Teens abused by boy- 
friends cannot call upon these laws for relief, nor can their parents 
who would seek to protect them. Women battered by their minor 
children are not within the class of victims covered. 

Thus, statutes exclude many victims, primarily women, who are 
acutely vulnerable to the violence and terrorism at the hands of in- 
timates. 

The second problem that I would direct the committee to address 
is the definition of abuse. Most restraining protection order stat- 
utes define abuse as the attempted infliction of bodily injury or se- 
rious bodily injury. They follow the criminal law. They do not 
afford relief to victims who are held prisoners in their home, who 
are sexually coerced by partners, whose property is destroyed or 



77 

stolen by husbands, or cannot eat or sleep adequately because of 
disruption of these activities by abusers. 

I would like to address briefly the psychological abuse which I 
have not heard addressed, except by the women this morning. 

If a woman and her children live in constant terror; if they are 
controlled, humiliated, ridiculed, exploited, coerced and intimidat- 
ed; there is no legal relief available to them under the civil stat- 
utes. They must live in this terror or seek to escape. 

The very personhood and integrity of women who are psychologi- 
cally abused is at risk, and the laws of this land do not serve to 
protect them. 

A third problem with statutory drafting of civil protection orders 
is related to the duration of protection orders. Some last as much 
as one year. In one State, they last only 15 days. I cannot compre- 
hend what a battered woman can do in 15 days to so fundamental- 
ly change the world as to be safe. 

But even those women who need protection a year later, protec- 
tion that extends beyond the statutory limit, cannot get it unless 
there is a recurrent act of abuse. Therefore, they must either 
choose to relocate or endure this incredible, life-endangering vio- 
lence. 

The relief available in many restraining statutes is also too 
narrow. It does not include eviction of the abuser or temporary 
orders of custody, two remedies that have proved to be invaluable 
in prevention of further abuse. 

No statutory language satisfactorily addresses the issue of victim 
restitution, victim restoration. Women are not able to obtain funds 
for property damage, relocation costs, loss of income and other ex- 
penses incurred as a result of abuse. 

Statutes are silent about weapons used by batterers. They do not 
include provisions that would authorize courts to preclude the use 
possession of weapons by abusers during protection orders, despite 
the fact that as many as 50 percent of all battered women are as- 
saulted at one time with a gun, a knife or another weapon. 

The deficits in the statutory language can squarely be attributed 
to the firmly entrenched attitudes and values that blame women 
for the violence inflicted upon them, that tolerate men's tyranny 
towards women and that are reluctant to hold batterers accounta- 
ble for the harm they inflict. 

I would like to turn then to implementation and enforcement of 
civil protection orders. As troublesome and as inadequate as statu- 
tory language has proven to be, the letter of the law of civil protec- 
tion orders is significantly better than its implementation and en- 
forcement. All of the legal system actors charged with the responsi- 
bility of making the civil statutes work to protect battered women 
have been remiss. They have resisted their charge of protection. 
They apply criteria extraneous to the law in determining which 
battered women will, in fact, receive assistance. 

Women viewed as "worthy" receive greater assistance. Women 
deemed worthy are most likely to be white, middle- or upper-class, 
above reproach, helpless appearing, quiet-spoken women who do 
not physically defend themselves against assault. This categoriza- 
tion or these categories represent the cultural ideal of the "good 



78 

woman." Women who do not fall in that category are not viewed as 
entitled to system protection. 

Women who are angry, women of color, women on welfare, 
women who appear physically strong, women with any known 
criminal record, women who are drug addicts, even women who 
know and articulately assert their legal rights are often denied the 
protections that the law affords. 

Judges have increasingly, and without legal authority, entered 
what is called "mutual restraining orders," absent any evidence— I 
mean any evidence — that the battered woman has acted in any 
way that can be defined as abuse under civil statutes. 

Judges" routinely believe that it takes two to tango. Judges who 
have extreme bias against women are entering restraining orders. 
A mutual restraining order may be worse for battered women than 
no order at all because she routinely fmds herself arrested when 
the police come in response to her calls. 

The road to justice is long for battered women. It has many road- 
blocks. A battered woman may be able to move beyond a signifi- 
cant number of these barriers, but having moved beyond the first 
does not make the second more achievable, and moving heroically 
through nine of the 10 hurdles can still leave her dead at the 
threshold of the last. 

I would like then to turn to criminal statutes. Again, I will look 
at drafting and implementation problems. Because of the con- 
straint of time, I will only address two drafting problems. I think 
there are many, but I want to look at the fact that criminal stat- 
utes do not address the restoration and protection of victims. 

First of all, there is little protection for battered women who are 
complaining witnesses. Bail statutes do not attend to the special 
safety needs of battered women who are the chief witnesses for the 
prosecution in misdemeanor or felony cases against husbands and 
boyfriends. Battered women are often expected to live with the de- 
fendant without protection for the duration of criminal proceedings 
and they are assumed to be safe in doing so, despite the fact that 
charges were brought based on the defendant's unsafe conduct. 

Victim intimidation statutes of relatively recent vintage offer 
some measure of protection, however these were designed for and 
best serve victims of stranger crimes. 

Parole statutes do not uniformly require the correctional system 
or the district attorney to notify victims of parole hearings, to 
permit them to participate in parole hearings or to advise them of 
release dates. Battered women are substantially placed at risk 
when these kinds of protections are not offered. 

Turning to the implementation of criminal statutes, as I see it, 
the principal functions of the criminal justice system have been to 
deter crime, to protect the citizenry from the criminals and the in- 
juries they inflict, to punish, restrain or rehabilitate the offender, 
and to restore the victim in the community to the status they were 
in prior to the criminal assaults. 

Over the course of the last 15 years, battered women, activists 
and policymakers in the criminal justice system have been at- 
tempting to persuade the public and others in the justice system 
that violence against women is a crime; not a nuisance, but inten- 



79 

tional criminal conduct, and therefore, that domestic violence 
should be dealt with seriously. 

While there is evidence that the public has recognized the crimi- 
nal nature of domestic violence, there is still widespread resistance 
to this conclusion within the criminal justice system. I will not 
detail, although I have in my testimony, that resistance. 

I know that my time is almost up. I have two more points, I 
guess, that I would like to make. I think that the reform efforts 
made' in the criminal justice system, unfortunately, have focused 
on fixing the abuser. We have begun to see that fixing the abuser 
is a panacea, rather than focusing on the protection and restora- 
tion interests and needs of battered women. 

I would urge this committee to very carefully avoid those kinds 
of recommendations that are primarily focused on fixing abusers at 
the expense of battered women and children. 

As to other recommendations — I have five — I think that you 
need to adopt statutes in light of the testimony that I have given. I 
think that beyond that, no legislation is self-effecting and that pro- 
tocols and procedures need to be embraced by every component of 
the legal system so that they easily and expeditiously and surely 
and consistently respond to battered women. 

Protocols in training are absent in almost every local justice 
system in the country. Beyond that, I think there needs to be moni- 
toring. I think that monitoring of these justice system components 
needs to be external. I do not trust that they will self-monitor in a 
way that will protect battered women and children. I think that 
this external monitoring needs to be acquired where it is resisted. I 
think it will probably work better where it is voluntary, but I think 
that monitoring is critical. 

I also think that services are essential. When protections — when 
legal protections are not available, the need for services, be it advo- 
cacy shelter, whatever, increases incredibly, and therefore, I call on 
Congress and state governments to begin both to assure that pro- 
tections are available through the law and to provide services when 
they are not. 

Finally, I think that we need, as a nation, to engage in concerted 
consciousness raising about violence against women. I do not think 
that all the law in the world is going to change the status of 
women. It is not going to protect women and children. It is not 
going to restore us to health and welfare unless we profoundly 
change our belief in the second-status nature of women in this cul- 
ture. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Barbara J. Hart follows:] 



80 



Prepared Statement of Barbara J. Hart, Esquire, Staff Counsel, Pennsylvania 
Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Reading, PA 

GOOD MORNING GENTLEMEN .AND WCftlEN. MY NAME IS B.ARBARA HART, AND 
I AM STAFF COUNSEL FOR THE PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC 
VIOLENCE. I THANK CHAIRMAN MILLER FOR THE INMTATION TO SPEAK WITH 
YOU TODAY. I OOMVIEND YOU, THE OORRIITTEE .AND STAFF, FOR CONVENING THIS 
HEARING. 

THERE IS A MOL'NTING CRISIS IN THIS COL'NTRY RESULTING FROM THE 
FAILURE OF THE LAW AND OLH SYSTEM OF JUSTICE TO S.AFEGUARD WOMEN FROM 
THE LIFE-END.ANGERING AND TERRORIZING ASSAULTS OF MEN. I WOULD SPECI- 
FICALLY ADDRESS THE FAILURE OF THE L.AW TO PROTECT ^>CMEN WHO ARE ABUSED 
BY THEIR HUSB.ANT>S. P.ARTNERS . OR OTHER FAMILI.AL INTI\UTES. 

MANY CIVIL .AND CRIMINAL 57.ATLTES . DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE VICTIMS 
OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE .AND TO DETER BATTERERS FROM FUTURE VIOLENCE, HAVE 
BEEN ADOPTED OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST ELEVEN YE.ARS . ALTHOUGH THEY 
HAVE PROVIDED RELIEF .AND PROTECTION TO MILLIONS OF VVCftlEN AND CHILDREN, 
IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THESE L-AWS HAVE .ACHIEVED THE PROMISE OF PROTEC- 
TION .AND DETERRENCE FOR WHICH THEY WERE PROMULG.ATED. 



81 



CIVIL PROTECTION ORDERS. 

LET ME FIRST DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO CIVIL RESTRAINING OR PRO- 
TECTION ORDER LEGISLATION, TAILORED SPECIFICALLY TO STOP DOMESTIC VIO- 
LENCE AND TO PROTECT VICTIMS. THESE STATUTES HAVE BEEN .\DOPTED IN 
MOST STATES IN THE NATION. IN SOME JURISDICTIONS .AND FOR SOME l\OMEN, 
THEY HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY HELPFUL, BUT FOR TOO M.'VNY IVOVIEN THESE LAWS 
HAVE BEEN USELESS. THE FAILURE OF PROTECTION ORDER STATUTES CAN BE 
ATTRIBUTED BOTH TO DRAFTING AND ENFORCEMENT PROBLEMS. 
DRAFTING PROBLraiS. 

1. DEFINITION OF CLASS OF VICTIMS. MOST PROTECTION ORDER 
STATUTES TOO NARROIVLY DEFINE THE CLASS OF ABUSED PERSONS 
ELIGIBLE FOR RELIEF. FOR E.X.A.MPLE , SOME REQUIRE THAT A 
VICTIM MUST BE MARRIED TO BE I.VCLLDED IN THE CL.ASS OF PRO- 
TECTABLE PEOPLE. OTHERS REQUIRE CURRENT CO-HABITATION. OLD 
WOMEN AND MEN WHO ARE ABUSED IN THE HOME BY CARET.AKERS ARE 
OFTEN INELIGIBLE IF NOT REL-ATED TO THE .ABUSER. TEENS ABUSED 
BY BOYFRIENDS CANNOT CALL UPON THESE LAWS FOR RELIEF, NOR 
CAN THEIR P.ARENTS WHO WOULD SEEK PROTECTION ON THEIR BEHALF. 
WOMEN BATTERED BY THEIR MINOR CHILDREN .ARE NOT WITHIN THE 
CLASS OF VICT I.MS COVERED. THUS, ST.ATUTES E.XCLLT)E MANY 
VICTIMS, PRIMARILY WOMEN, WTIO .ARE ACUTELY VULNERABLE TO 
VIOLENCE .AND TERROR I S.M AT THE HANDS OF INTI.MATES. 
2. DEFINITION OF ABUSE. .MOST RESTRAINING OR PROTECTION ORDER 
STATUTES DEFINE ABUSE AS THE .ATTEMPT OR INFLICTION OF BODILY 
INJURY OR SERIOUS BODILY INJURY. THEY DO NOT .AFFORD RELIEF 



82 



TO VICTIMS WHO ARE HELD PRISONERS IN THEIR HOME. WHO ARE 
SEXUALLY COERCED BY PARTNERS, ^^fHOSE PROPERTY IS DESTROYED OR 
STOLEN BY HUSBANDS, OR WHO CANNOT EAT OR SLEEP .ADEQUATELY 
BECAUSE OF DISRUPTION OF THESE ACTIVITIES BY ABUSERS. THIS 
IS BUT A BRIEF LIST OF CONDUCT THAT IS ABUSIVE BUT NOT 
ACTIONABLE UNDER MANY STATE LAWS. 

3. DURATICW OF (WDERS. STATUTES LIMIT THE DURATION OF PROTEC- 
TION ORDERS TO NO MORE THAN ONE YE.AR IN MANY JLTIISDICTIONS 
AND FOR AS LITTLE AS FIFTEEN D.AYS IN ONE STATE. ALTHOUGH 
THERE IS OFTEN A NEED FOR PROTECTION IVELL BEYOND THE STATU- 
TORY PERIOD, LAWS DO NOT PROVIDE FOR AN EXTENSION OF RELIEF. 
ADDITIONAL ACTS OF .ABUSE MUST OCCUR .AND A NEW PETITION MUST 
BE FILED BEFORE THE BATTERER CAN BE RESTRAINED. THIS LEAVES 
MANY WOMEN WITH NO CHOICE BLT TO TRY TO RELOCATE TO BE FREE 
OF ABUSE. 

4. RELIEF AVAILABLE. THE RELIEF SET FORTH IN MANY RESTR.AINING 
STATUTES IS TOO NARROW. SOMETIMES IT DOES NOT INCLUDE AN 
EVICTION OF THE ABUSER OR TEMPORARY ORDERS OF CUSTODY. TWO 
REMEDIES THAT HAVE PROVED TO BE IN^".ALUABLE IN PREVENTION OF 
FURTHER ABUSE. NO STATUTORY L.ANGU.AGE SATISFACTORILY 
ADDRESSES THE ISSUE OF VICTIM RESTITUTION FOR PROPERTY 
DAMAGE, RELOCATION COSTS, LOSS OF INCOME AND OTHER E.XPENSES 
INCURRED AS A RESULT OF .ABUSE. STATUTES .\RE SILENT ABOUT 
\\fEAPONS USED BY BATTERERS. THEY DO NOT INCLUDE PROVISIONS 
WHICH WOULD AUTHORIZE COLTITS TO PRECLUDE THE USE .AND 



83 



POSSESSION OF WEAPONS BY ABUSERS, ALTHOUGH STUDIES SHOW 
TH.AT AS MANY AS FIFTY PER CENT OF BATTERED WOMEN ARE 
ASSAULTED AT ONE TIME WITH A GUN, KNIFE OR OTHER WEAPON. 

THE DEFICITS IN THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE C^N SQUARELY BE ATTRIBUTED 
TO FIRMLY ENTRENCHED ATTITUDES AND VALUES THAT BLAME WOVIEN FOR THE 
VIOLENCE INFLICTED UPON THEM, THAT TOLERATE MEN'S TYRANNY TOWARD WOMEN 
INTIMATES, AND THAT ARE RELUCTANT TO HOLD BATTERERS ACCOUNTABLE FOR 
THE HARM THAT THEY INFLICT. 

IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF PROTECTION ORDERS. 

AS TROUBLESOME AND INADEQUATE AS STATUTORY LANGUAGE HAS PROVEN TO 
BE, THE LETTER OF THE LAW OF CIVIL PROTECTION ORDERS IS SIGNIFICANTLY 
BETTER TRAN ITS IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT. 

.ALL OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM .ACTORS (ATTORNEYS, POLICE, BAIL COMMIS- 
SIONERS. ARR.AIGNMENT MAGISTRATES, DISTRICT ATTORNEYS, AND JUDGES) ARE 
CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MAKING THE CIVIL STATUTES WORK TO 
PROTECT BATTERED WOMEN. YET, MANY RESIST THIS CHARGE. THEY APPLY 
CRITERIA E.\TR.ANEOUS TO THE LAW IN DETERMINING WHICH BATTERED WOVEN 
WILL RECEIVE ASSISTANCE. WOMEN VIEWED AS "WORTHY" RECEIVE GREATER 
ASSISTANCE. WOMEN DEEMED "WORTHY" ARE MOST LIKELY TO BE WHITE, 
MIDDLE OR UPPER CLASS, ABOVE REPROACH, HELPLESS -APPEARING, QUIET- 
SPOKEN WOMEN WHO DO NOT PHYSICALLY DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST ASSAULT. 
THIS IS THE CULTUR.AL IDE.AL OF THE "GOOD WOMAN." "WORTHY" BATTERED 
WOMEN ARE VIEWED AS BEING ENTITLED TO SYSTEM PROTECTION. THEY .ARE THE 
MOST LIKELY TO GET IT. .ANGRY WOMEN. WOMEN OF COLOR. WOMEN ON WELF.ARE, 



84 



WOMEN VVHO APPEAR PHYSICALLY STRONG, WOMEN WITH ANY KNOWN CRIMINAL 
RECORD, WOMEN WHO .ARE DRUG ADDICTS, EVEN V\OMEN WHO KNOW AND 
.ARTICULATELY ASSERT THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS, ARE OFTEN DENIED THE PROTEC- 
TION THAT THE LAW AFFORDS. THIS MAY MEAN THAT ORDERS ARE REFUSED OR 
THAT ORDERS ARE SKELETAL; OR THAT THEY ARE NOT REGISTERED WITH THE 
POLICE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENFORCEMENT; OR THAT POLICE DISP.ATCH OFFI- 
CERS FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THESE ORDERS AS LOW PRIORITY CALLS; OR THAT NO 
ARRESTS OF BATTERERS IS MADE DESPITE VIOLATIONS OF PROTECTION ORDERS 
OCCURRING IN THE OFFICER'S PRESENCE; OR THAT BATTERED WOMEN ARE 
CHARGED WITH FILING FALSE POLICE REPORTS IF THEY REFUSE TO INITIATE 
PRIVATE CRIMIN.AL COMPLAINTS; OR THAT JUDGES PRESIDING OVER CONTEMPT 
AND MISDEMEANOR VIOLATION HEARINGS LECTURE THE BATTERED WOMEN ABOUT 
BEING A BETTER WIFE AND INSTEAD OF INCARCERATING THE BATTERER, OR 
FINING HI.M, OR ORDERING RESTITUTION, OR RESTRAINING HIS ACCESS TO HER 
AND THE CHILDREN, .ADVISE HIM TO STAY OUT OF THE BARS, TO TAKE HIS WIFE 
OUT TO A .MOVIE ONCE IN A WHILE, AND TO STOP THIS FOOLISHNESS. 

JLTXiES HAVE INCREASINGLY AND WITHOUT LEGAL AUTHORITY ENTERED 
"MUTUAL" RESTRAINING ORDERS. ABSENT ANY EVIDENCE THAT A BATTERED 
WOMAN HAS ACTED TO "ABUSE" THE BATTERER IN ACCORD WITH THE LANGUAGE OF 
THE ST.ATUTE, JUDGES WHO CLEARLY BELIEVE THAT IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO 
ISSUE ORDERS PROTECTING THE BATTERER FROM THE BATTERED WOMAN. A WOMAN 
WITH A MUTUAL RESTRAINING ORDER WHO CALLS THE POLICE ROUTINELY FINDS 
HERSELF .ARRESTED FOR CONTEMPT OF THE PROTECTION ORDER. THUS, A MUTUAL 
RESTR.AINING ORDER MAY BE WORSE THAN NO ORDER AT ALL. 

THE ROAD TO JUSTICE IS LONG FOR BATTERED WOMEN. IT HAS .MANY ROAD 



85 



BLOCKS. A BATTERED WOMAN MAY BE ABLE TO MOVE BEYOND A SIGNIFICANT 
NUMBER OF THESE BARRIERS, BUT HAVING MOVED BEYOND THE FIRST DOES NOT 
MAKE THE SECOND MORE ACHIEVABLE, AND MOVING HEROICALLY THROUGH NINE OF 
THE TEN HURDLES. CAN STILL LEAVE HER DEAD AT THE THRESHHOLD OF THE 
LAST. 

ALTERNATIVES TO THE LEGAL PROCESS. 

WE ARE ALSO BEING TOLD BY PROFESSIONALS IN THE MEDIATION FIELDS 
THAT INSTEAD OF CIVIL PROTECTION ORDERS, BATTERED WOMEN SHOULD ATTEMPT 
TO STOP THE VIOLENCE THROUGH MEDIATION. THE AMFRICAN BAR ASSOCIATION 
HAS SET UP A NUMBER OF MODEL PROJECTS WHICH DIVERT BATTERED WOMEN FROM 
LEGAL PROCESS AND OFFER THE SUBSTITUTE OF CONCILIATED AGREEMENTS. 
THESE AGREEMENTS ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE THROUGH THE COURTS EXCEPT AS CON- 
TRACTS AND DO NOT PERMIT POLICE OFFICERS TO ARREST ASSAILANTS UPON A 

PROBABLE CAUSE DETERMINATION THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED. 

* * * 

ALTHOUGH RESEARCH DATA AND HISTORY DEMONSTRATE THAT MEDIATION 
AND CONCILIATION DO NOT END BATTERING AND DO NOT PROTECT VICTIMS AS 
WELL AS ORDERS THROUGH LEGAL PROCESS, POLICY-MAKERS AND COLUT ADMINIS- 
TRATORS ARE BEING ENCOURAGED BY MEDIATION PROFESSIONALS TO "MODERNIZE" 
AND ECONCXWIZE BY EMBRACING THIS DANGEROUS AND INEFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVES 
TO LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR BATTERED WOMEN. 



* ELLIS, DESMOND, AND WIGHT -PEAS LEY, LORETTA, "WIFE ABUSE AMONG 
SEPARATED WOMEN: THE IMPACT OF LAWYERING STYLES." CHICAGO: 
PAPER PRESENTED AT THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF 
AGRESSION, 1986. 

•» HART, BARBARA. "MEDIATION FOR BATTERED WOMEN: SAME SONG, SECOND 
VERSE, A LITTLE BIT LOUDER, A LITTLE BIT WORSE." NEW YORK: 
NATIONAL CENTER ON WOMEN AND FAMILY LAW, 1984. 



86 



CRIMINAL STATUTES. 

DRAFTING PROBLEMS. 

THERE IS NOT TIME TODAY TO FULLY ENUMERATE THE SERIOUS PROBLEMS 
POSED FOR BATTERED WOMEN AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE INADEQUACIES OF STATE 
AND FEDERAL PENAL CODES. HOWEVER, THERE ARE TWO STATUTORY PROBLEMS 
WHICH I WILL ADDRESS TODAY. 

1. THERE IS LITTLE PROTECTION FOR BATTERED WOMEN WHO ARE COM- 
PLAINING WITNESSES. BAIL STATUTES DO NOT ATTEND TO THE SPECIAL SAFETY 

NEEDS OF BATTERED WOMEN WHO ARE THE CHIEF WITNESSES FOR THE PROSECU- 

* 

TION IN MISDEMEANOR OR FELONY CASES AGAINST HUSBANDS AND BOYFRIENDS. 
BATTERED WOMEN ARE OFTEN EXPECTED TO LIVE WITH THE DEFENDANT WITHOUT 
PROTECTION FOR THE DURATION OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS. AND THEY ARE 
ASSUMED TO BE SAFE IN DOING SO DESPITE THE FACT THAT CHARGES WERE 
BROUGHT BASED ON THE DEFENDANT'S UNSAFE CONDUCT. 

VICTIM INTIMIDATION STATUTES (A RELATIVELY RECENT VINTAGE) OFFER 
SOME MEAS'TRE OF PROTECTION. HOWEVER, THESE LAWS NARROWLY LIMIT THE 
SCOPE OF RELIEF TO THAT WHICH BEST SERVES VICTIMS OF STRANGER CRIMES. 
VICTIM INTIMIDATION STATUTES DO NOT IMPOSE A DUTY ON LAW ENFORCEMENT 
AGENCIES TO AFFIRMATIVELY PROTECT VICTIMS; FOR EXAMPLE BY MONITORING 
OF DEFENDANTS' CONDUCT OR BY FACILITATING INCREASED SECURITY AT THE 
WORK SITES OF VICTIMS. IF VICTIMS ARE TO SAFELY P.ARTiCIPATE IN CRIMI- 
NAL PROSECUTION, THESE PROTECTIONS MUST BE IN PLACE. 



* GOOLKASL^, GAIL, A., "CONFRONTING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: THE ROLE OF 
CRIMINAL COURT JUDGES," NIJ. RESEARCH IN BRIEF, NOVEMBER, 1986. 



87 



2. PAROLE STATUTES DO NOT UNIFORMLY REQUIRE THE CORRECTIONAL 
SYSTEM OR THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY TO NOTIFY VICTIMS OF P.'\ROLE HEARINGS 
ON RELEASE STATES. NEITHER DO THEY REQUIRE THAT P.-^iROLE PLANS INCOR- 
PORATE VICTIM PROTECTION, WHERE APPROPRIATE. WE POSIT THAT VICTIM 
PROTECTION SHOULD ALWAYS BE INCLUDED IN PAROLE CONDITIONS WHERE THERE 
HAS BEEN A HISTORY OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, WHETHER OR NOT DOMESTIC 
ASSAULT PRECIPITATED THE INCARCERATION. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF CRIMINAL STATUTES. 

THE PRINClP.JlL FUNCTIONS OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM HAVE BEEN 
TO DETER CRIME, TO PROTECT THE CITIZENRY FROM CRIMINALS AND THE 
INJURIES THEY INFLICT, TO PUNISH, RESTRAIN AND/OR REHABILITATE THE 
OFFENDER AND TO RESTORE THE VICTIM AND THE COVIMUNITY TO THE STATUS 
THEY WERE IN PRIOR TO CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS. 

OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST FIFTEEN YEARS, BATTERED WOMEN, ACTI- 
VISTS AND POL ICY -MAKERS IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM HAVE BEEN 
ATTEMPTING TO PERSUADE THE PUBLIC AND OTHERS IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM 
THAT VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IS A CRIME -- NOT A NUISANCE, BUT INTEN- 
TIONAL CRIMINAL CONDUCT -- AND THEREFORE, THAT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 

SHOULD BE DEALT WITH SERIOUSLY. WHILE THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THE 

« 

PUBLIC HAS RECOGNIZED THE CRIMINAL NATURE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, THERE 
IS STILL WIDESPREAD RESISTANCE TO THIS CONCLUSION WITHIN THE CRIMINAL 
JUSTICE SYSTEM. 



* "NEW JERSEY PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY RECORDING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE," 
PREPARED BY IRVING CRESPI & ASSOCIATES FOR THE N.J. DEPARTMENT OF 
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, J.ANU.\RY. 1987. 



88 



POLICE OFFICERS ALMOST UNIFORMLY CHOOSE NOT TO PROSECUTE 
BATTERERS FOR CRIMES THE OFFICERS HAVE NOT WITNESSED. RATHER THAN 
SEEKING AN ARREST WARRANT UPON CONCLUD I NG- THAT THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE 
TO BELIEVE THAT A MISDEMEANOR OR FELONY HAS BEEN INFLICTED ON A BAT- 
TERED WOMAN OUTSIDE OF THEIR PRESENCE, THEY TELL HER TO SEEK COUN- 
SELING FOR THE -ABUSE OR TO INITIATE A PRIVATE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT (A 
PROCESS THAT MAY BE COSTLY, TIME CONSUMING AND WHICH DOES NOT OFFER 
ANY REAL IMMEDIATE PROTECTION). IN MANY JURISDICTIONS POLICE WILL 
ONLY SEEK PROSECUTION FOR CRIMES COMMITTED OUT OF THEIR PRESENCE WHEN 
THE INJURIES TO THE VICTIM ARE SIGNIFICANT. THE "7 STITCH RULE", FOR 
EXAMPLE, IS AN INFORMAL GUIDELINE THAT ONLY ENCOURAGES POLICE PROSECU- 
TION WHERE THE VICTIM NEEDS 7 STITCHES OR MORE. 

POLICE EXERCISE THEIR DISCRETION BROADLY IN "MANDATORY ARREST" 
STATES TO ARREST BATTERED WOMEN ON THE SLIMMEST OF EVIDENCE WHILE 
REQUIRING STRONG CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PLUS THE BATTERED WOMAN'S 
STATEMENT BEFORE ARRESTING AN ABUSER. 

BAIL COMMISSIONERS STILL LARGELY RELEASE DEFENDANTS ON RECOGNI- 
ZANCE BAIL IN DOMESTIC ASSAULT CASES. THEY IMPOSE NO SPECIAL CONDI- 
TIONS ON BAIL TO PROTECT VICTIMS EVEN THOUGH CASE AND STATUTORY LAW 
OFTEN PERMIT. 

FOR FAR TOO MANY PROSECUTQpS , THESE CASES ARE LOW PRIORITY AND 
THEREFORE DO NOT MERIT ANYTHING BUT THE MOST CURSORY PRE-TRIAL PRE- 
PARATION. THEY ARE PRESUMED TO BE APPROPRIATE FOR DIVERSION OR PLEA 
BARGAINING. ALTHOUGH THESE PROSECUTORIAL CONCLUSIONS MAY BE REBUTT- 
ABLE, FEW VICTIMS HAVE THE POWER TO EFFECTIVELY INFLUENCE PROSECU- 
TORIAL DECISION-MAKING IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES. 



89 



THE JUDICIARY HAS BEEN PARTICULARLY RESISTANT TO EDUCATION ABOUT 
WOMAN ABUSE AND OFTEN HARBORS V I CTIM- BLAMING BIAS. JUDGES EXERT STRONG 
PRESSURES ON PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE COUNSEL TO DISPOSE OF DOMESTIC 
VIOLENCE CASES BEFORE TRIAL. THEY PERMIT BATTERED WOMEN TO BE RE- 
VICTIMIZED BY THE TRIAL PROCESS; TOO OFTEN ACTIVELY P.^RT I C I PAT I NG IN 
THIS VICTIMIZATION. 

PROBATION AND PAROLE OFFICERS FORMULATING SENTENCING RECOMMENDA- 
TIONS DO NOT IMPOSE CONDITIONS THAT WILL SAFEGUARD BATTERED WOMEN AND 
CHILDREN. THEY FREQUENTLY DO NOT ENFORCE CONDITIONS OF BAIL ABSENT 
FURTHER CRIMINAL CHARGES. WHEN PAROLE REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS ARE 
INITIATED, NOTICE IS SELDOM ACCORDED THE BATTERED WOMAN TO ENABLE HER 
TO MAKE SAFETY PLANS IN LIGHT THEREOF. 

IN FACT, THE THRUST OF MUCH OF THE REFORM EFFORT IN THE JUSTICE 
SYSTEM HAS FOCUSED ON "FIXING THE ABUSER" -- VIEWING THESE CRIMINALS 
SYMPATHETICALLY AND ANTICIPATING THEIR SPEEDY REHABILITATION THROUGH A 
MINIMUM OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE INTERVENTION. IT IS PATENTLY LUDICROUS TO 
VIEW BATTERERS AS PEOPLE LESS ENTRENCHED IN PATTERNS OF HEINOUS, SELF- 
SERVING AND VI CTIM- ENDANGERING CRIMINAL CONDUCT THAN DRUG RUNNERS AND 
PROMOTERS, BANK ROBBERS, ARSONISTS AND DRUNK DRIVERS. THIS FOCUS ON 
"FIXING BATTERERS" HAS OFTEN PRODUCED JUSTICE SYSTEM PROCEDURES TR^T 
EQUATE THE INTEREST OF VICTIMS AND SOCIETY WITH THOSE OF THE BATTERER 
-- THAT EMPHASIZE BATTERER REHABILITATION AND MINIMIZE VICTIM SAFETY 
AND RESTITUTION. 
CRIME VICTIMS' COMPENSATION LAWS. 

MOST OF THE STATES HAVE ADOPTED CRIME VICTIM COMPENSATION 
STATUTES. MORE THAN HALF PRECLUDE COMPENSATION TO VICTIMS OF CRIMES 
PERPETRATED BY FAMILY MEMBERS. EVEN IN THOSE STATES WHERE FAMILY 



90 



EXCLUSION CLAUSES HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED, COMPENSATION TO DOMESTIC 
VIOLENCE VICTIMS RARELY IS AWARDED. WHEN AWARDED, BATTERED WOMEN ARE 
ALMOST NEVER ADEQUATELY COMPENSATED FOR THEIR LOSSES, AND THE PROCESS 
MAY TAKE UP TO A YEAR FROM CLAIM TO AWARD. 

CONCLUSION. 

THESE STATUTES AND PRACTICES REFLECT AN INDIFFERENCE TO THE PRO- 
TECTIONS NEEDED BY BATTERED WOMEN. BATTERED WQMEN ARE ENTITLED 
MORALLY AND LEG.ALLY TO THE PROTECTION OF OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM. THE 
RIGHTS AND INTEGRITY OF BATTERED WOMEN MUST BE RESPECTED IN THE PRO- 
TECTION PROCESS. INADEQUATE RESOURCES TRULY LIMIT BATTERED WOMEN'S 
OPTIONS. THEREFORE, ADEQUATE PROTECTION IS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT. WE 
ARE NOW SEEING THE BACKLASH AGAINST THE GAINS WON BY BATTERED WOMEN IN 
THE LEGAL REFORM PROCESS. THEREFORE, EFFORTS MUST BE REDOUBLED TO 
BRING ALL OF THE POWER OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM TO BEAR IN SUPPORT OF 
BATTERED WOMEN. CONGRESS SHOULD WORK WITH BATTERED WOMEN, ACTIVISTS 
AND POLICY-MAKERS TO INSURE SAFETY FOR BATTERED WOMEN AND CHILDREN. 

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION AND CONSIDERATION. 



91 

Chairman Miller. Thank you very much. 

This certainly makes you rethink your law school education 
about assault and battery and the notion that if you suffered from 
it, you had an immediate remedy at law because, clearly, for mil- 
lions of women and children, that is not the case here. 

Let me see if I know where to begin. You obviously seem to be 
running your office differently from most district attorneys — and I 
do not mean that in a disparaging fashion; it is just a statement of 
fact. And there are a number of jurisdictions — the one I happen to 
represent — that are making an effort to provide separate units; to 
provide specialized training; to provide both some toughness with 
respect to the perpetrators of violence and some sensitivity to the 
victims of that violence. But that is still unique. 

Ms. HoLTZMAN. Yes, and part 

Chairman Miller. It is unique in your State. It is unique in my 
State. 

Ms. HoLTZMAN. Why is it unique? First of all, not every district 
attorney's office has undertaken to engage in training, to handle 
these cases sensitively, to understand that it is not the victim's 
fault, to remove the sexist attitudes that exist. But, you know, even 
if you ran the most perfect, sensitive, compassionate district attor- 
ney's office, you are part of a system that may be insensitive and 
callous. Unless you begin to change that system, you can only go so 
far, which is why we fought to get the law changed on marital 
rape. 

In fact, the sad thing in New York State in that litigation was 
that there were only two amicus briefs that argued that the law 
was unconstitutional. Both parties to the suit — the prosecutor and 
the defendant — were perfectly happy not to have the law declared 
unconstitutional. We still have 36 States in which women are 
viewed as property when they get married. That has to change. 

You have to change not only how a prosecutor's office operates, 
but you have also to press the court system to engage in training. 
You have to press the police to change their procedures. You have 
to work with the state legislature and with the Congress to get 
funding for shelters, for treatment programs, for counseling and 
begin to change attitudes through educational programs. 

Chairman Miller. In your testimony at one point, you men- 
tioned that 63 percent of the males aged 11 through 20 who commit 
a homicide kill the man who abuses their mother. Is that a nation- 
al figure? Is that what you are saying? 

[For updated statistics, see letter dated December 21, 1987, on page 
187.] 

Ms. HoLTZMAN. I know New York and Brooklyn sorietimes are 
thought of as the crime center of the universe, but I think the one 
thing about domestic violence is that it knows no State lines, it 
knows no class lines, it knows no religious lines, it knows no ethnic 
lines. 

Chairman Miller. I do not know what happens, and I am not 
suggesting that this is all a justification for homicide, but clearly, 
you have to try to put yourself into the position of the young child 
who continues to see his mother battered, abused and beaten, and 
a system that does not respond. Pretty soon, it does not take long, I 



92 

would suspect, for you to think about becoming a vigilante within 
that system. 

Ms. HoLTZMAN. And those cases present special problems for 
prosecutors because how do you prosecute that kind of a homicide? 
How do you prosecute a case in which a woman has been battered 
for years and then claims, as a matter of self-defense, that she had 
to kill her husband? Or a child who has been victimized, raped, a 
victim of sexual abuse by a father, finally responds by killing the 
father? 

There are many other people who have perhaps argued this with 
more scholarship than I, but when you go back in criminal law, 
you will recognize that the notion of self-defense never was one 
that applied to women. So then what does a prosecutor do in this 
circumstance? 

In cases in which we believe that violence, sex abuse, rape, or 
battering prompted the defendant to commit homicide, we bring 
that evidence and appropriate legal charges to the attention of the 
grand jury. We are not always required to do that. Again, this is 
the kind of thing that prosecutors have to be educated about. 

That is just another very important area that has to be looked 
at. 

Chairman Miller. The clue to what is happening is that for a 
significant number of people, the failure of the system is starting 
to funnel you down a road where you end up taking the law into 
your own hands, either as the victim or, as in this case, as the child 
of a victim. 

When we started discussing this some years ago in the Congress, 
there were a lot of people talking about women who were abusive 
against men and trying to promote the urgency of our addressing 
that. I could really find no substantial evidence of that. Obviously, 
it does occur from time to time. 

One night I spent the night in a shelter, and late that night, I 
was talking to the women in the shelter. I was asking them about 
this argument, that there was equal abuse. They decided that they 
saw no evidence of that. 

I said that I had been trying to find some of the victims of abuse 
by women and there was a lot of silence. Finally a young mother 
spoke up and said, "Maybe you're looking in the wrong place." She 
said, "I think you should be looking in the morgue because that's 
what happens. You have to understand, if we fight back, we had 
better kill him because if we just simply anger him or injure him 
and he comes back into this house, there's going to be hell to pay." 

But the reason — I mean, what is starting to evolve here this 
morning is we are just seeing a repeat performance, because there 
is no meaningful intervention except in a few jurisdictions. And 
what you are telling us is that even when you get your victim all 
prepared and taken care of and send her off to court, she may very 
well encounter a judge who does not think much of these kinds of 
cases or just simply is not aware that this is criminal behavior or 
does not accept that it is criminal behavior. 

So what you are suggesting is that we have kind of a systemic 
problem in terms of the response system. I think that Mr. Sears, 
you know, and others— I think we see all kinds of activities that 
contribute to this violence and we can argue that back and forth. 



93 

We know the statistics on abused children and how they act out 
later in life and all that. But once the incident takes place, we 
simply have a failure in terms of some kind of system in this coun- 
try to accept those victims readily and treat them as such. 

I do not want to overdraw the case here, but after reading a 
number of fairly scholarly works in the last couple of months, it 
appears that there is essentially a nonresponse. 

Ms. HoLTZMAN. I think that that is true. I think that things 
have, to some extent, been getting better. I think there are district 
attorney's offices that have made progress in terms of their own 
training and their own attitudes and their own programs. Obvious- 
ly, in some jurisdictions, the police have changed their practices. 
The battered women's movement has put a lot of pressure on and 
helped sensitize the criminal justice system, but I think on the 
whole, you still have people who do not think that domestic vio- 
lence, no matter how brutal it is, is serious. Even worse, many be- 
lieve it is the woman's fault. It is her fault because she should have 
done something about it; such as getting out of the house. There 
are also those who think that the courts have no business being in- 
volved — battering really has no impact on society and it is none of 
society's business. 

That has to change. I think the Congress can play a leadership 
role by helping to stimulate the training of judges, the training of 
prosecutors, the training of police, disseminating materials, and 
providing funding for shelters. There is a lot of work that can be 
done. 

We also need to help victims. You talk about what happens when 
the victim gets to court. We would like the victim to get to court, 
but one of the major problems we have is that many of these 
women's sense of self-worth is so diminished that they will not 
come to court or help prosecute; they cannot see a world for them- 
selves outside of the battering that they have endured, no matter 
how brutal it is. And we have seen cases in which women have 
been hospitalized, their jaws fractured, their bones fractured and 
yet they go back to the batterer. 

So you need to have a tremendous amount of help at all levels of 
this system. Even when parts of the system are responding, the 
whole system is not. 

I hope that this committee can do something about that. I re- 
spect and commend your leadership in this respect. Congressman 
Miller. 

Chairman Miller. Ms. Hart, regarding bail, what you are sug- 
gesting is that in the instance where there may be bail provided so 
somebody can get out of jail after engaging in this violent behavior, 
the condition of the bail really is that you show up in court, not 
that you stop the behavior. 

Ms. Hart. That is the practice, yes. What we are suggesting is 
that there should be special conditions placed on bail that particu- 
larly address the protection of victims. Eviction from the home, for 
example; restraining him from going to her work site; and there 
are certain places that women are most at risk. And those bail con- 
ditions can be imposed that will enhance her safety. 

Chairman Miller. I am not familiar enough with this system. Is 
this done in other instances? Courts can set down the conditions? 



80-78A 88 - A 



94 

Ms. Hart. Yes, and the Supreme Court recently ruled on 

Chairman Miller. You can do this? 

Ms. Hart. Yes, and states have the opportunity to devise statutes 
that specifically enumerate the kinds of special conditions. 

Pennsylvania has done that, by the way, in the instance of do- 
mestic violence and there is a mandatory bail condition in a domes- 
tic violence misdemeanor arrest when the magistrate concludes 
that the batterer is a danger to the victim. Then the magistrate 
must impose special conditions which exclude him from the home 
and exclude him from her place of work, education, whatever. 

Chairman Miller. So in some instances — obviously, we don't 
want people released when we believe that they are a danger to 
the community at large 

Ms. Hart. That is correct. I am not saying 

Chairman Miller. You are defining the community as — he has a 
great propensity to go back and commit violence at that particular 
address. 

Ms. Hart. That is correct. 

I think that there are other things that should be looked at. The 
study suggested earlier in Minnesota about the effect of mandatory 
arrest overlooks the fact that in Minnesota, there is at least a 36- 
hour detention period after the arrest. 

I think that there is some real, good deterrent value in that kind 
of detention. He has 36 hours in order to evaluate what is going to 
happen to him if the criminal prosecution 

Chairman Miller. He is also more likely to have to explain it 
to — it is no longer a private matter at that point. 

Ms. Hart. That is correct. 

Chairman Miller. Thirty-six hours pretty well suggests that you 
are going to have to explain to somebody else why you are not at 
work; or if you don't explain it, your work record is different than 
it would have been otherwise. 

Ms. Hart. That is correct. There may be some real value in 
shock detention, just the awfulness of having to sit there and eat 
that food and sit behind those bars. There are many batterers who 
are not career criminals. That very detention may, in fact, together 
with the arrest, be what has deterred future violence, and that is 
not often recorded when that data is given. 

I think it is an important thing to look at. 

Chairman Miller. Congressman Coats. 

Mr. Coats. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sears, I would like to 
say thank you for the work that you have done on behalf of the 
pornography commission. There is a great deal of misinformation 
as to what the commission was doing and what they reported. Un- 
fortunately, there is so much attention focused on that that not 
enough attention was focused on the parts of the report that I 
think received very widespread acclamation and agreement. 

One of those was section 2, which I think you alluded to in your 
earlier testimony, describing violent pornographic material. I am 
wondering if you could elaborate a little bit on the research meth- 
odology you used to come to the conclusions that you did, and then 
I have some follow-up questions on that. 

Mr. Sears. All right, Congressman Coats, thank you. 



95 

I believe the easiest way to explain the methodology would be, 
perhaps, to rebut what critics said. As I mentioned earlier, we 
heard from over 300 individuals. We conducted 100 in-person inter- 
views that were very in-depth interviews, where we went out and 
corroborated to the extent possible — as these women have testified 
here earlier this morning, so many of these women never get to the 
stage of reporting the incidents of violence so there is no official 
record. 

In other cases, they have either a need to go to the hospital to 
have objects removed from their vaginal or anal orifices or to have 
treatment for physical battery that related to the abuse; that there 
were hospital records extant. In some cases, there had been some — 
particularly in the middle- and upper-class income areas, where 
there was insurance or economic means, there had been oftentimes 
a psychiatrist or psychologist who had become involved in a coun- 
seling role. 

So, to the extent possible, we went out and corroborated all of 
the testimonies of these women and we found, basically, that the 
stories, though incredibly different, were also incredibly the same. 
As I think every witness who has been here earlier this morning 
testified, there were commonalities in the kinds of abuse. 

In addition to those witnesses, we received hundreds of written 
letters and statements of various people. We traveled and spoke to 
individuals. We had live testimony. These were criticized by the 
pornographers and their allies as merely anecdotal experiences; 
however, I have not found a victim of rape or battery or abuse to 
consider that to be a mere anecdote, but to be a very real harm to 
that individual. 

We found, without any real significant effort to do so, hundreds 
of these victims in our society. 

In addition, we looked at the social science research. We did not 
say that social science categorically proves anything. We have 
pointed out the weaknesses of research, what it could show, what it 
could not show, and then we outlined the research. 

Filed as a part of my statement is a doctoral dissertation submit- 
ted July of 1987 by Dr. James Weaver, University of Kentucky, 
that basically, in essence, says that the Commission on Pornogra- 
phy understated. It was too conservative in its statement of what 
the evidence showed and that there is much more evidence of 
harm. We looked at social science. In addition, we dealt with law 
enforcement officers, victims assistance coordinators, people from 
every walk of life. We heard from those professionals and others 
who had dealt with the real world. 

So I think our methodology was quite thorough. 

Mr. Coats. Relate specifically how you drew the conclusion, or 
what steps were taken to come to the conclusion that, as you said 
here, I think the modeling effect leads to the violent action, leads 
to the rape, leads to the abuse. 

How do you make that transition and how scientific is your con- 
clusion? 

Mr. Sears. First of all, there are a number of social science stud- 
ies that deal with this area, but I think it is important for the 
record to note that social science measures attitudinal and belief 
changes more than behavioral change. We have very limited ability 



96 

in any area, such as the effect of advertising, to determine just 
what it is that makes the person carry out the behavior. 

But the social science research that is extant is quite good and it 
is quite detailed. It leaves out a major sample of the universe; we 
leave out the young children; we leave out the regular consumer; 
and we certainly don't deal with the kinds of men who are involved 
in these practices. We basically deal with college students. 

But the studies showed substantial changes in attitudes and be- 
liefs about women. For example, the theory that every woman se- 
cretly harbors the desire to be taken; that when a girl says "no," 
she means "y^s," and so forth. 

We looked at the social science studies on who the consumers of 
pornography were and we found the same thing that the 1968 com- 
mission found, which is something that is not broadly advertised. 

The largest category of consumers of pornography in America 
are 12- to 17-year-olds. They are in the real world. This is not a 
consenting-adult issue. This is the training material for the youth 
of America. This is what women are and what women want to have 
done to them. 

If I might make just a side note and detract a second. District 
Attorney Holtzman just spoke about the problem we have with the 
teaching by the males. They see the abuse of their mothers and 
many of the crimes that occur — but we also have those same young 
boys seeing displayed in the marketplace this material, and as we 
had many of these young boys talk to us, testify, and many of the 
older men, they learned how to abuse their wife or their girlfriend 
through this material. 

They thought this was acceptable behavior. They told us, "Hey, 
this is sold in the corner store. It is everywhere you go. It is at the 
neighborhood video place. These adult bookstores. We have politi- 
cians in our town that stand up and tell us how good this stuff is 
for people and should not be prosecuted." 

There has been a teaching that this kind of behavior is protected 
and respectable behavior to use against women. 

So we had those stories from the offenders. We interviewed of- 
fenders. One offender on death row gave us 70 hours of interviews, 
very in-depth, about how he had learned to abuse women, and ulti- 
mately ended up with a serial killing of a number of women, all 
sexually violent in nature. 

Basically taking all of the evidence together, we came to the con- 
clusion that there was a nexus and a link from real-life experiences 
and from the social sciences. Not one or the other, but a combina- 
tion of the totality of the evidence. • 

Mr. Coats. Was that conclusion endorsed by a majority of the 
panel members? Obviously, it was; it was part of the report, but 
was that 

Mr. Sears. As to — we divided pornography into different catego- 
ries. As to the sexually violent material, it was an overwhelming 
and unanimous decision. 

Mr. Coats. There was a unanimous decision on Section 2? 

Mr. Sears. Yes. 

Mr. Coats. The conclusion was supported by all of the commis- 
sion members? 

Mr. Sears. Right. 



97 

Mr. Coats. I am wondering if either Ms. Holtzman or Ms. Hart 
have had the opportunity to review the commission's report and 
whether you agree with Section 2 to the effect that hardcore por- 
nography has on this particular subject? 

Ms. Hart. I have reviewed it and I am not prepared to comment. 
I read it when it first came out. 

Ms. Holtzman. I have read portions of the report, but I am not 
prepared to comment on it. 

Mr. Sears. If I could add one thing, one of our recommenda- 
tions — we made 92 recommendations — and one of those is that 
every domestic violence group that works with these battered 
women include in its intake survey form certain questions relating 
to pornography. A number of groups have done that, Mr. Coats, 
and our experience is now — in one area outside of — not too far 
from Congresswoman Holtzman's district, from where she is dis- 
trict attorney — over 50 percent of the women coming into the 
center now are answering the questions affirmatively, that pornog- 
raphy was involved in the abuse and in the modeling of the type of 
behavior that was conducted against them. 

Mr. Coats. There was some testimony that enforcement officials 
and agencies and so forth were really not sensitized to this prob- 
lem. Has there been any evidence that the Attorney General's com- 
mission report has helped to both sensitize enforcement officials 
and others dealing with the problem and brought about some 
changes in the way that the enforcement is undertaken? 

Mr. Sears. There has been significant change in a number of 
communities. I have been in 34 States. We have 20 cities in Amer- 
ica in the last 18 months that have eradicated all of the illegal 
businesses, all of the so-called — I hate the terms "hardcore" and 
"softcore," Mr. Coats, because women's bodies are neither, but 
those are what we unfortunately are left with to talk about in the 
debate. 

We have noted in some of the areas, they are beginning to keep 
statistics. Cincinnati, Ohio, was a city that cleaned up this material 
some years ago, and they kept crime statistics there in an unusual 
way, on a block-by-block basis. The neighborhoods where the mate- 
rial was openly sold and promoted, before and after, showed dra- 
matic differences in both the major crimes and minor crimes 
against women. It is dramatic and startling to see the difference it 
made in those areas. 

But, see, we cannot do many controlled studies because people go 
across the boundary to the next place it is available. But there is a 
heightened sensitivity. 

I think the most important thing that this Congress could do, in 
addition to enacting some of the legislation, is to help change the 
attitude in America about who and what women are. It is no more 
acceptable to traffic in the bodies of women and pornography and 
to look upon them as objects to be used this way than it is to 
engage in many other violent and antisocial acts. 

IJnfortunately, many of our public officials, Mr. Congressman, 
have been silent in this area, or even been supportive of what I call 
the pornography ethic. That is the ethic that it is acceptable, some- 
how, for women to be used this way and we should not limit peo- 
ple's rights to look upon women and abuse them in this fashion. 



98 

Mr. Coats. Thank you. 

Chairman Miller. Mr. Grandy. 

Mr. Grandy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think it might be worth saying for the record that in my expe- 
rience, representing a very rural constituency during a period of 
economic decHne over the past few years, I have witnessed an in- 
crease in the instance of domestic violence, sometimes very strange 
domestic violence. 

There was an instance in a small community that I represent 
where a 14-year-old girl was consistently beating up her mother. I 
see in the testimony that it is obviously too difficult to quantify the 
economic influences on this violence. But I did want to get into 
your remarks Ms. Holtzman, about what happens to boys who wit- 
ness violence and who grow up to abuse their mates. What happens 
to the girls? Do they grow up to marry abusers? Do they become 
terribly paranoid and sheltered? Is there a trend in their behavior 
when they grow up? 

Ms. Holtzman. Again, I am not sure that I have the statistics at 
my fingertips on this, but I do not think there is any question that 
girls who are brought up in a home where there is battering also 
may believe that this is the norm and they, in their own marriages 
or in their own relationships, may say, "Well, if this is happening 
to me; it happened to my mother; this is the way the world works 
and this is my fate and there is nothing that can be done about it." 

So I think there is no question that this has a tremendously 
harmful impact on children, and not only in terms of whether they 
will become victims or victimizers. I am not sure that we have 
really studied in what other kinds of ways it affects their behavior 
and affects their sense of self. 

Mr. Grandy. We have data here suggesting that one-half of the 
women who attempt suicide and those who actually kill themselves 
are battered women. 

Is there any data suggesting that a woman who is married to an 
alcoholic will frequently remarry another person who is an alcohol- 
ic? Do you see this trend at all? Is there a kind of pattern that is 
set forth? 

Ms. Holtzman. No, I do not think so. I think that to suggest that 
is wrong — women are not at fault; they are not victims by choice. 
They may not understand how they can extricate themselves from 
a battering situation because they have seen so much battering 
around them. This is why it seems to me that it is very important 
not only to have a criminal justice system that will work to protect 
battered women but also educational systems that will teach girls 
and women that they do not have to be in this circumstance. It is 
also important that our laws, including the Constitution, assert 
women's full dignity and humanity, as well as equality. 

Mr. Grandy. Getting to the criminal justice aspect of that and 
the Minnesota plan, is this the Duluth plan that you are talking 
about? That was my understanding. 

Ms. Hart. The Minneapolis police study is the one that has been 
referred to, but I am familiar with the Duluth project. 

Mr. Grandy. Does that not include some mandatory incarcer- 
ation for a first offender? Do they put somebody away for a mini- 
mum of 36 hours? 



99 

Ms. Hart. There is a detention period that is 36 hours. I under- 
stand, in Duluth, it may be as long as 48. 

Mr. Grandy. I see. 

I might have misunderstood you, Ms. Hart, did you have a prob^ 
lem with that? Do you think that detention perhaps is 

Ms. Hart. No. I suggested that it would, in fact, deter. It may, in 
effect, save battered women from death in that particular time 
period. 

Mr. Grandy. So there is quantifiable data that proves that it ac-, 
tually reduces violence? 

Ms. Hart. The Minneapolis police study coupled arrest with de- 
tention and, yes, their arrest/detention choice, in fact, deterred vio- 
lence more than any of the other interventions done by police. 

Mr. Grandy. Does it increase the reporting of violence? In other 
words, are women who know this law exists more inclined to report 
instances of spouse abuse because they know an offender will be 
put away for 36 to 48 hours? 

Ms. Hart. I think that there is not evidence to suggest that that 
is true. In fact, some women in mandatory reporting states under- 
report because they know, in fact, he will be retained and they be- 
lieve, and have been told over and over again by him that if they 
are, in fact, arrested or detained, that he will kill them upon his 
release. 

I do not think that you have good data yet about increased re- 
porting. 

Mr. Grandy. How about that problem.? Obviously that is a very 
real fear for a lot of women, to put somebody away for 36 hours, 48 
hours and then, I assume, he is free. 

Ms. Hart. I think the Duluth project tends to deal with that. 
During that 36 hours, an advocate goes out and visits with the bat- 
tered woman at her home, talks to her about her legal options, 
offers her shelter, tells her that when that 36 hours is up, she will 
get a call to be told when he is to be released; that if she wants at 
that time to come into shelter, she may, in fact, get that. She is 
told about all her legal options and she is helped to begin those. 

Meanwhile, the batterer, who is sitting in the sheriffs detention 
cell, gets a visit by a man who is doing intervention work to tell 
him about the programs that are available to him, but to absolute- 
ly underscore that he has committed a heinous crime that society 
will not accept and that if he continues this misbehavior, he will 
find himself, at least in Duluth, locked up for a substantial period. 

There is intervention to both the batterer and to the battered 
woman during the detention period, which I think greatly helps 
the battered woman make decisions about her safety and about her 
relationship to the criminal prosecution that will follow. 

Mr. Grandy. As far as the right to stay home is concerned, do 
you not really need a Minnesota kind of plan to go hand-in-hand in 
allowing the woman to stay home, as opposed to going to a shelter? 
If there is no detention for the spouse, what is to keep him from 
coming right back to the house and abusing her, as opposed to a 
shelter where she would be protected? 

I agree with you in allowing the victim to stay home if she feels 
more comfortable, but how do you create legally that atmosphere 
of comfort unless the person is incarcerated at least temporarily? 



100 

Ms. HoLTZMAN. In New York, and I suspect in most jurisdictions, 
when someone is arrested, they are incarcerated, held in custody 
until they are properly booked and brought before a judge. It takes, 
in New York, generally 36 hours, minimum. It is not an intentional 
program; it is just part of the booking process. 

Mr. Grandy. Bureaucracy at work, right? 

Ms. HoLTZMAN. That is it. Getting fingerprints and checking the 
record and so forth. 

We are starting the program that was mentioned — and actually, 
it is a federally funded program — trying to provide to the victim 
information about what kinds of services are available, what her 
options are, to provide counseling immediately at that point, also. 

Mr. Grandy. Assuming this works, do you see, perhaps, a re- 
duced need for shelters? 

Ms. HoLTZMAN. Not yet. 

Mr. Grandy. So you still need a kind of program that would per- 
petuate safe harbors for abused women and their children. 

Ms. HoLTZMAN. Oh, yes. It is still too soon, in terms of our pro- 
gram, to give you the results as to how well it is working. We have 
it only in one precinct, in one small area. 

Mr. Grandy. Do you have any data on the connection between 
alcohol abuse and domestic abuse and narcotic abuse? I mentioned 
a situation which is almost always related to severe economic 
crisis, but it is really more families turning on each other, rather 
than repeated offenders and recidivism. I am just curious about the 
instances which you cite, whether there is not a problem with sub- 
stance abuse, as well as domestic abuse. 

Ms. HoLTZMAN. Again, I don't have the figures for you, but there 
have been some studies that have been done. Let me put it to you 
this way, certainly in the area of abuse of elderly people, we see 
that that is heavily tied into drug abuse, particularly crack use. 

As part of our sentencing program, we try to insist that the bat- 
terer go through a drug treatment program or alcohol program if 
that is relevant. Obviously, I think that that is a factor in many 
cases. On the extent to which it is, I don't have the figures, but I 
would be happy to provide them to you. 

Mr. Miller. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. Grandy. I would be glad to yield to the chairman. 

Mr. Miller. The committee does have some figures, because we 
went through this in one of the other hearings. There is a connec- 
tion, I think in a number of cases, a number of studies, where alco- 
hol is a factor within the abusive cycle. We can have the staff get 
that for you. 

Also, in the last recession, we took a look specifically at rural 
communities and what was happening that may be of interest to 
you, and some of the problems that women in rural communities 
have with reporting, because either they are related to a lot of 
people in the community and/or there is just the notion that if you 
tell somebody, it is going to be — you know, your business is going 
to become everybody else's business. 

We can get some of that information for you. 

Mr. Grandy. I thank the chairman. As it turns out, I have re- 
viewed some of that material and there is, I think, a question of 



101 

isolation and familiarity in those communities that perhaps does 
not exist. 

Mr. Coats. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. Grandy. I would be glad to yield. 

Mr. Coats. Reference was made earlier to the Minneapolis study. 
We have, or I have here, the written statement of James Stuart, 
who is the Director of the National Institute for Justice, and he ref- 
erences that study in detail. If it is all right, I would like to ask 
unanimous consent that it be made part of the record. 

Chairman Miller. Without objection. 

Mr. Grandy. Thank you. 

I guess I just wanted to ask — obviously, there is a connection be- 
tween alcohol or substance abuse and domestic abuse, violence. 
Should it be part of the program to treat all symptoms when a 
person goes in? I mean, there should be some kind of alcohol abuse 
therapy that is implicit in the training against violence. Is that not 
going without saying? Is that in the works right now? 

Ms. HoLTZMAN. Let me just say that in general, the programs 
available to treat offenders, whether it is drug treatment programs 
or alcohol treatment programs or batterers programs, are very few, 
badly funded and wholly inadequate. 

Obviously, it is important when alcohol is part of the problem 
that it be treated. When we find that is part of the reason for the 
abuse, then we will get the court to sentence the person to attend 
these alcohol treatment programs. 

But the important thing to recognize is that alcohol alone is not 
the only factor here because alcohol reduces the inhibitions and 
allows the feelings that are there to begin with take control, 
namely, that it is appropriate to use force against a woman, that 
she becomes a sexual object. That she becomes an object, dehuman- 
ized — that, I think, is the problem. 

That is why we have to get at the underlying attitudes, as well 
as the factors that allow those attitudes to be expressed. 

Mr. Grandy. I agree with you totally. What I was hoping for was 
that there was some kind of umbrella program that attacks this on 
all points. I assume that is what you are saying; it is existing in 
New York City, but 

Ms. HoLTZMAN. It does not exist in New York City. The program 
that I have referred to exists in my borrough because we have 
worked with the victims agency to get that set up. Part of the prob- 
lem is that the work that has been done — and it has been very cre- 
ative in various parts of the country — is dependent on what kinds 
of local initiatives there are and what kind of local funding there 
is. 

That is why Congress can play such an important role in helping 
disseminate the information, in helping to stimulate that local ini- 
tiative and helping to fund it. 

Mr. Grandy. Mr. Sears, just one final question. I was sitting here 
thinking when you were talking to Mr. Coats, do you have any 
data on rates of marital rape, domestic abuse, family abuse in 
countries such as Denmark or Holland, where the public display of 
pornography is most hard to avoid? 

Mr. Sears. Yes, sir, we have some data and I would be glad to 
submit in written form some numbers on that from the commis- 



102 

sion's work. Dr. John Cort and others — Dr. John Cort from Austra- 
lia engaged in a number of cross-cultural surveys on some of these 
related problems. There was a study that was included in the earli- 
er 1968 commission report that suggests that in certain Scandinavi- 
an countries, accompanying the legalization and availability of this 
type of material, that there was a consequential decrease in sexual 
offenses. 

Those figures, as reported, were correct in the 1968 report; how- 
ever, they failed to cover what we found in the later look, that ac- 
companying the decriminalization of the pornographic material, 
there was also a decriminalization of many sexual offenses. For ex- 
ample, the one of highest single reported sexual offenses at the 
time of this decriminalization was what we commonly refer to in 
this country as "flashing." That was all completely legalized in 
those countries. There is no such offense now and we have noted 
that there is a dramatic drop in crime rate when legalization 
occurs. 

However, when the — we went back and looked culturally, we 
found that that same country, Denmark, had an overall drop in 
crime rate for the reasons I have already stated, but we had an in- 
creased rape rate. 

I am also aware of a study here in the United States that was 
done by two professors at two of our major universities that dealt 
with the correlational data between the rape rates and the avail- 
ability of commonly circulated so-called men's magazines — I also 
despise that term for the reasons earlier stated — that showed, 
among the 50 States, there were only about three States out of se- 
quence with the circulation per capita of these magazines and the 
rape rate. It did not distinguish the difference between marital 
rapes or other types of domestic rapes. 

But as we stated in the commission report, I do not think you 
can conclude from that correlation data that that alone proves X, 
Y, or Z. That is one piece of evidence to look at this problem. But I 
would be happy to submit at a later time to the committee data on 
cross-cultural studies. 

Mr. Grandy. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Miller. Mr. Wolf. 

Mr. Wolf. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Mr. 
Miller and Mr. Coats for having these hearings and welcome the 
panel here. It is a pleasure to see you, Ms. Holtzman. You do not 
know who I am, but I have followed your career. I remember when 
you ran and had absolutely no chance of beating and then you 
woke up the next day and you were there. Although I do not know 
that we would agree on some issues, I really admire you. 

I just wanted to express to Ms. Hart and Congresswoman Holtz- 
man, to ask, if you could, go back and look at this Section 2. I do 
not know what is in Section 2 either, completely, and I talked to 
Mr. Coats and he explained, but I think, based on what you are 
both trying to do, you really ought to go and look at Section 2 and 
maybe tell the committee what your views are on the Pornography 
Commission because it seems to me that the two of you and Mr. 
Sears are really kind of bookends. He is talking about, and you are 
talking about, something very important. 



103 

That is, the protection and prosecution and what do you do when 
you have a problem. I think you have to, as the father of four 
daughters. If something happens, you have to have the infrastruc- 
ture. 

I think what Mr. Sears is talking about, and I may be wrong and 
I apologize for not having read either of your statements in great 
depth, but on page 11, he says, "We now know that thousands upon 
thousands of women have been battered and abused as a direct 
consequence of pornography." 

Mr. Sears made the comment — what percentage of the shelters, 
Mr. Sears? What percentage did you say asked the question about 
pornography? 

Mr. Sears. We have a very small number that we are now aware 
of that ask the question, but in those shelters that are asking the 
question, the numbers are running as high as 50 percent 

Mr. Wolf. Fifty percent. 

Mr. Sears [continuing]. But this is — and I don't mean to suggest 
that this is the major or the only cause, but it is a significant 
cause. 

Mr. Wolf. Okay. Fifty percent, and then you say, "It is my belief 
and the belief of the Attorney General's Commission on Pornogra- 
phy that pornography alone is not the sole cause of sexual assault 
upon women in this country or many of the other acts of physical, 
psychological, social violence that occur. However, it is known that 
the effects of pornography are significant. It is the belief of the 
commission and myself that a world without pornography would be 
a better world, a world with less rape, less sexual discrimination, 
less violence and less rape." 

If you put Mr. Sears' position and your position together, it 
seems to me that is the way to solve the problem. What you all are 
doing is dealing with the problem that we have today, which has to 
be done, but he, I think, is talking about how to prevent it, kind of 
getting down at the tap root and chopping it off so that we can deal 
with the problems that we have, but maybe prevent them from 
coming. 

Not that you both ought to have looked at Section 2 and know it 
by heart, but I would appreciate it if you would go look at Section 2 
on directly what Mr. Coats asked and submit for the record what 
your comments are with regard to that. I think maybe part of the 
solution is to put Mr. Sears' points and your points together. Then 
we deal with the problem today, but we also go back and kind of 
cut it off, caring for the future generations that are coming along. 

If I can for the record ask of both of you, look at Section 2 and 
not just say you did not read it, but go back and read it because I 
know — I do not know, Ms. Hart, of your record, but I know of Mrs. 
Holtzman's. I think that is a legitimate thing, to examine it, par- 
ticularly, as Mr. Coats said — and this is a long question, but par- 
ticularly if it was a unanimous view. There were some people on 
the Pornography Commission who condemned the overall report 
because they, for different civil liberties reasons — it was a relative- 
ly balanced commission, seven-three, six-four. 

If they reached a unanimous conclusion, then I think it is worth 
both of you going back and looking at it and reporting to the com- 



104 

mittee as to what your comments are. If I could ask you to do that 
officially for the record. 

Ms. Hart. I would be pleased to review and comment. 

I would like to say, however, that although pornography, in my 
experience as a private practitioner and as staff counsel for the 
Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, is an activity 
that is perpetrated by many batterers and is a part of many batter- 
ing episodes. I do not, at this juncture, view pornography as a 
primal cause. You are suggesting cause. I think that it is incident 
to — it is a part of abuse that many women experience. 

I think that there is a more fundamental problem in this culture 
in that women are chattel. Women are not 

Mr. Wolf. But the magazines may end up bringing that about. 
You may be right, but I think if it is — you know, my car is totally 
finished and you look at it and it is a beautiful car, but without the 
gasoline, it will not run. The gasoline is an incidental — I mean, you 
do not even buy it when you buy from the car dealer, but you need 
it. 

And if it is a portion — if it is 5 percent or 50 percent or 3 percent 
or 45 percent, we have really got to deal with it. I tend to agree the 
other problem is really the problem of self-esteem, low self-esteem 
probably is the root problem of almost — is part of some of the 
major problems that we have in this country. 

One of the reasons that Mr. Hinckley did what he did; one of the 
reasons that Sirhan Sirhan did what he did and Oswald did what 
he did, but if there is another factor that joins it and forces it to 
combust, then we have to deal with it. 

I think you have got to go back and deal with it. This commis- 
sion report was well-received. The American Civil Liberties Union 
did not really embrace it, but overall, it was relatively well-re- 
ceived. There is some validity in this. 

If there is, you have to, for a person who cares deeply about it, 
you have to look at this as an element. Now it may not be the over- 
riding element, but it is an element, and therefore, I just request 
that you go back and — you know, you have not read Section 2 and I 
am not going to hold you to that today, but go back and read it and 
give us your report because you have more knowledge on this issue. 
You have forgotten more than a lot of us in Congress know. 

You have to mend those, meld those two and give us your best 
thinking on it. 

Ms. Hart. May I just make one suggestion, if I might, to the. Con- 
gressman, also? 

I think that batterers do not batter because of low self-esteem, 
and I think it is very important that Congress address that issue. 
Batterers batter because they are entitled to do so because they 
have male privileges in this culture, and therefore, to say 

Mr. Wolf. It is wrong. We both agree it is wrong. 

Ms. Hart. But I think that seeing men as sick, rather than 
seeing men as privileged, makes a major difference in the kind of 
intervention that you take legally 

Mr. Wolf. Ms. Hart, we both agree that it is wrong, and let's try 
to find the reason. 

Ms. Hart. I would be glad to review that. 



105 

Mr. Wolf. If what Mr. Sears says has any validity — which I per- 
sonally believe that it does — I think we have to address that por- 
tion of it because we cannot solve the whole problem until we kind 
of look at the different parts of it. 

Mr. Sears. Can I make a comment, Mr. Congressman? 

Mr. Wolf. Yes. 

Mr. Sears. Thank you. 

One of the things that Ms. Lee, who testified earlier this morn- 
ing, and you have her written testimony, talked about was the 
need for early intervention and the need to change, for example, 
with the young girls, as they grow up to become women, their atti- 
tude about their self-esteem and their rights as persons. 

Ms. Hart just talked about the male privilege in this culture. 
Part of the male privilege in the culture in America today is to go 
out and consume vast amounts of this material that teaches that 
women are objects; that women like to be beaten; they like to be 
tied up; they like to be defecated on; they like to be urinated on; 
they like to be a victim of these kinds of things. 

It is my belief that a young man can go through as many hours 
at school with sex ed programs, with training and all these other 
areas, and you can put that same young man with his peers in a 
room looking at these movies, these videocassettes, which are now 
the primary consumption item, and teach that man more in one 
evening about what he is to think about women and how he is to 
react to women than all the studies and all the courses in the 
school can teach. 

Basically, we have a young man who becomes sexually aroused. 
He then begins to associate that arousal with the images of women 
in that role. 

I know we had women who were beaten before there was pornog- 
raphy and we will have women beaten the day we eliminate all 
pornography, but I believe it is a significant training tool in our 
modern culture and when we have public officials who stand up 
and say this is not a problem; it should be lawful; it should be pro- 
tected by the First Amendment, I think we are teaching men a 
whole acceptability of this kind of behavior. 

Some of the offenders — and many of the child abusers — I have 
been involved in many search warrants where we have gone into 
the homes — you may be aware that on Monday, the Attorney Gen- 
eral announced the search of 276 child pornography cases, over 100 
indictments. One of the things we find in most of these people's 
homes are vast amounts of pornographic material and much of the 
material consists of legitimatization of their habit. 

One of the reasons they collect the material — and we know from 
the studies of these offenders and the lengthy interviews — is that 
they have to justify — they know what they do is wrong, but they 
want to have justification. It is a crutch. 

I agree with Ms. Hart, there are many, many other reasons, and 
I do not even say this is the root cause, but I believe it is a signifi- 
cant cause and it is one that we have overlooked for so long. 

I do not know any more powerful training tool to a young man 
than to accompany these images with his own sexual arousal, to 
teach him that women are to be battered and to like it and to take 
it or else. 



106 

Mr. Wolf. Congresswoman Holtzman, I just wonder if you could 
do the same thing, just look at it. 

Ms. Holtzman. I think it would be useful to look at. I find por- 
nography personally distasteful and I am sure it has a harmful 
effect in terms of molding attitudes, but I do think that there are 
some immediate things that could deal with the problem of those 
people whose lives have already been affected. 

For example, Washington, D.C.'s statutes do not make it clear 
that marital rape is a crime. This Congress has done a lot of legis- 
lating for Washington, D.C., and maybe one of the signals you 
could give about the misuse of women's bodies is to do something 
about that, for example. 

We also have a situation in which men whose attitudes have al- 
ready been shaped are out there battering women. These women 
have nowhere to go. We do not have enough shelters. We have chil- 
dren who are being abused. There are not enough counseling pro- 
grams for them. 

So give us some help in terms with dealing with the problem 
now, as well as looking at other ways in which we can address 
some of the contributing factors that give rise to it. 

Mr. Wolf. I think you make a lot of good points. 

If I can ask for the record that both Congresswoman Holtzman 
and Ms. Hart, if you will furnish your comments on Section 2. 

Just a last question, Mr. Sears, is there a — I heard that there is a 
point that a person who is looking at pornography, that that does 
not do it, and then there is an escalation and desensitizing. Would 
you comment as to what the commission found out with regard to 
that escalation, or did you find 

Mr. Sears. First of all, I want to report— I think it is important 
for the committee to know that there is only a minority in the psy- 
chiatric and psychological community that has looked at this area 
as a problem. Those that have looked at it have begun to — primari- 
ly from the case of victim offense — one of our psychologists who 
testified, for example, was one who worked with incest survivors. 
For 10 years, she never knew about pornography. She began to ask 
the question and, very much like the domestic violence report we 
had, over half of her incest survivors had had pornography used to 
lower their inhibitions. 

But what I want the committee to know, then, what I am saying 
is there is a limited number of people who know about this field. 
Those who have worked in this area, one of those being Dr. Victor 
Cline at the University of Utah, had developed certain theories 
that they believe there is a progressive nature; one becomes desen- 
sitized and is not aroused anymore with what we would call mere 
nudity or merely a woman's body on display, and then they move 
to the next stage. Ultimately, we get to a stage where the person is 
unsatisfied, even with the most violent and most sadomasochistic 
images, and contrary to the cathartic theory, the theory that this 
will release tension^people will masturbate and forget it — the ex- 
perience in real life is that many, many people cross the threshold 
and want to act out the activity. 

We have husbands who come home, after being in these so-called 
"adult" outlets, having had sex with men in the place, and have 
sex with their wives, transmit diseases, but also force their wives to 



107 

carry out those acts. Dr. Cline has dealt in his career with hun- 
dreds of famihes, women and men, who have been involved in this. 
He has dealt both with the offender and with the victim of that 
offense. 

It is his conclusion that there is a dramatic escalation effect and 
a dramatic incidence toward acting out or modeling that behavior. 

Mr. Wolf. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the panel and I will 
read all your testimony. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman Miller. Mr. Wortle3^ 

Mr. WoRTLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is a frightening society that we live in. I have a very uneasy 
feeling about the direction that we have been going in and that di- 
rection that we seem to be headed in in terms of violence. 

It seems to me that, at least what we read in the media, would 
indicate that there are an awful lot of repeat offenders out there. I 
do not know whether it is just a matter of the media reports, but 
repeatedly you find these stories of violence that exist in the daily 
newspapers, magazines, as well as seeing it on television. 

I have constituents of mine who regularly will send me mail 
saying, "Why doesn't the Post Office shut this stuff up?" Well, the 
outside of the envelope does say "sexually explicit solicitation" or 
something. Many of those people are not reading that themselves, 
but maybe they have younger, less-mature people in the family 
who get a hold of this material. 

You talk to the Post Office and they say, "The envelope is prop- 
erly labeled and there is really nothing we can do about it. You 
don't have to open it up," and so on and so forth. Well, my God, 
they know it is a dead box number someplace. There is a mischief- 
maker, there is a bad guy out there who is turning out sexually 
explicit material. Maybe it is photographs of children or whatever, 
but we do not seem to get results. 

In our courtrooms, I do not know if our defense attorneys are 
getting better and they know how to get around the laws or wheth- 
er there are more technicalities in the code that they exploit to get 
their client off, but I would like to know from all of you folks, do 
you see us moving in a stronger direction, the law enforcement 
system moving in the right direction, or are more and more people 
committing these crimes and getting away with it, either because 
of the legal system or maybe it is us up here or your state legisla- 
tures or your city legislatures who have not enacted legislation 
that closes the gap and brings us back to a civil society where we 
have some moral values? 

Why do we not start out with you, Mr. Sears. 

Mr. Sears. I think an important point. Congressman Wortley, is 
what Congressman Coats stated a moment ago. Those of us at this 
table do not sit here as parties advocating different solutions. I 
think we are in agreement that we have a problem that must be 
resolved. 

Ms. Holtzman and Ms. Hart have talked about the need to deal 
with those who have already become the offender and with those 
victims and there is a desperate need there. I think we can take 
encouragement from the fact that we are having a hearing like 
this today and that we are able to talk about model programs such 



108 

as that that Congresswoman Holtzman has instituted in her dis- 
trict. 

There is some definite movement in the right direction. I think it 
was the conclusion of the commission that we are, as with most 
kinds of social problems, doing too little too late. In the obscenity 
enforcement field, I think before you came in, I outlined that there 
was a crackdown and we have over 20 cities now that have eradi- 
cated this kind of material from their boundaries, but, of course, 
the people who want it can cross to the boundaries of the next one. 

We need much Federal concern and effort in this area, and we 
need the public officials to lead the way in saying this is just an 
unacceptable way. 

I think there is one group that we have left out in our discussion 
this morning, if I might have the liberty, and that is to just men- 
tion the women who are the prostitutes on the streets of this coun- 
try. Recently, in Washington, you may have seen the Washington 
Post article reporting that over half of the women on the streets 
had AIDS. They did not catch it from breathing in a room; they 
caught it from someone whom they were engaged in sexual rela- 
tions with. 

The majority of women on the street entered into that profession 
at about the age of 13 to 15. The majority of the women in that 
profession had no other financial options. The majority of women 
in that profession entered from one of the kinds of families that 
Congresswoman Holtzman and Ms. Hart and the other witnesses 
here talked about today, where they were either the victims of pa- 
rental abuse or spouse abuse. 

Most of the women involved in the pornography industry today, 
the kind of industry that the law can do something about, are 
these women. They are the products of domestic violence. They are 
the product of these broken, destroyed homes as a result of this. 

I think that we have made some tremendous progress by talking 
about it, but there is a long way to go. The kinds of solutions that 
we have all urged this committee to consider this morning would 
go toward resolving the problem. 

I might also mention there is a source of revenue for some of 
these solutions. Harping on the pornography prosecution just a 
moment, if I might, Mr. Miller, Mr. Chairman, one of the proposals 
of the commission is that every state enact a forfeiture law where 
we would seize the assets from these folks and when we prosecute 
them, seize their goods and put some of those funds into the kinds 
of programs that we are talking about here today and make the 
criminals pay the cost of the violence they have brought upon their 
victims. 

In Orlando, Florida, using the Florida forfeiture law, $50,000 was 
seized from one store. In Arlington County, Virginia, U.S. Attorney 
Henry Hudson has now seized over $2 million in assets in a RICO 
forfeiture case against one fairly minor-league player in the por- 
nography business; big in terms of the state, but small in terms of 
the nation. 

The resources are out there and the criminals can be made to 
pay for many of the programs that we would like to have here 
today. 



109 

Mr. WoRTLEY. District Attorney Holtzman, how many people the 
police arrest are actually charged with violence? I am speaking 
now of domestic violence. How many convictions do you come up 
with or does everybody go to a counseling service? 

I am concerned particularly about repeat offenders? 

Ms. Holtzman. Let me first say that until November of 1984, ^ye 
could not prosecute cases of marital rape. That was not a crime in 
New York State. Now it is a crime and so we can prosecute these 
cases. So even if a woman reported it, no arrests could be made and 
we could not prosecute. 

By the way, as I have pointed out, that situation still pertains in 
36 of the States of this country, sending a very horrible message 
about the role of women, the status of women and their humanity 
and dignity. 

The police now in New York City are operating under a new pro- 
tocol—well, it is not new now, but it was put into effect fairly re- 
cently—requiring them automatically to make arrests in a felony. 

In the past, the police had much more discretion and many times 
they reflected social attitudes which were that domestic violence 
was not serious and that it was the woman's fault. Through some 
of the programs that we have developed, we have been able to get 
orders of protection much more quickly, more judges are permit- 
ting woman to stay in the house and are ordering the batterer out. 
We have brought more prosecutions because we have tried to sensi- 
tize our assistant district attorneys to the handling of these cases, 
but we still find situations in which, for a variety of reasons, the 
woman will not prosecute. Sometimes they are willing to go for- 
ward, but there are not enough treatment programs that the bat- 
terers can be sentenced to; sometimes the judges themselves are 
not always receptive to the prosecutions in these cases. 

As I pointed out earlier, we developed a training prograrn for 
misdemeanor judges, but the system has refused to expand it to 
felony judges, just to give you an idea of the problems that are en- 
countered. 

But the whole system still has to provide the resources and the 
will and the legislation to permit battered women and abused chil- 
dren to have the recourse they are entitled to from the law. 

Mr. WoRTLEY. Do very many of the batterers actually go to jail 
or sentenced to terms or is it mostly rehabilitation? And how effec- 
tive do you feel that rehabilitation really is? 

Ms. Holtzman. We would prefer to prosecute and see jail terms 
in many more cases, but in many cases, the complaining witness, 
the victim, does not want to see that happen. The man may be the 
sole provider; she may feel guilty in terms of her children; she may 
feel a variety of things that will make her very reluctant to pro- 
ceed. 

This also happens, by the way, with children who are the victims 
of incest. They, too, are reluctant to proceed for some of the same 
reasons against the parent. 

In those cases, we have no alternative. Thank goodness, we do 
have at legist a court sentencing program of counseling, but we 
would prefer to see jail sentences, particularly in the more serious 
cases or in cases of repeated violence. If we can get the complain- 



no 

ing witness to cooperate, that is what we get and we sometimes get 
very severe sentences, appropriate to the severity of the battery. 

Mr. WoRTLEY. Ms. Hart, I did not mean to leave you out. Do you 
have some observations? Do you think the system is improving or 
moving in the right direction or do you have the same concerns I 
do, that perhaps we have failed? 

Ms. Hart. I think the system is improving. I think that largely it 
is moving in the right direction. I think that it continues to primar- 
ily fail battered women, however, and I think that despite the fact 
that this hearing, about legal issues, we have a much more pro- 
found problem in this culture and it is one in which we tolerate 
violence against women. 

I do not want to leave on the note that somehow if we upgrade 
the legal system, we are going to end violence against women. We 
are not. We are only going to end violence against women once we, 
as a culture, absolutely state that we will not tolerate it and that 
we will, as individuals, not as law enforcement officers, but as 
mothers and sisters and fathers and brothers and friends, absolute- 
ly interfere with — bring attention to the violence and say that we 
will not tolerate it. We, as private citizens, have as much right to 
be vocal about our abhorrence of violence against women as law 
enforcement agencies. 

I think it is something that Congress can do to facilitate that pri- 
vate — not legal-system — statement that we will, as a community, 
no longer tolerate violence against women. I think it is important 
that you help in that endeavor. 

Thank you. 

Mr. V/oRTLEY. Part of this is probably representative of the 
moral decline of society, the very permissive society that we are 
living in today. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Miller. Thank you, and I want to thank the wit- 
nesses. I want to make sure that— I do not think anybody has said 
this, but I am concerned that we not leave the overall impression 
that we have a correlation here where these acts of violence are 
carried out by people who traffic in or consume pornography. That 
may very well be a contributor, but we have instances of violence 
against our children and against spouses and women in this society 
to an extent that far exceeds even that causation. 

We are talking about a generic problem within this society that I 
do not think has an5rthing to do with the moral decline of this soci- 
ety. Men have been beating women throughout history so unless 
there was a grand moment there when everything was perfect, it is 
a tragic comment on the image and the view of women. 

I take a little bit of issue here. I do not think that you can 
change people's attitudes when, in fact, they look at a legal system 
that almost sanctions this by default. That worries me. I think you 
are right. It is for everybody to make that decision that another 
person has a right to be safe in their own body and not to be 
abused, but when you see the activity carried out and you see no 
resultant punishment for that behavior or sanction against that be- 
havior, I am concerned about whether you really have the ability 
to change people's attitudes. 



Ill 

Again, there is some acquired behavior going on here by what 
you see transpiring. I think it was pointed out by Ms. Holtzman in 
terms of what happens to some of the adolescents. I am terribly 
concerned that when somebody in this society yells for help there 
is a real haphazard response here from the agencies that are sup- 
posedly in the business of protecting. 

But let me thank you very much for your testimony. 

We are going to go over and vote and be back in about five min- 
utes and then we will hear from the third panel. 

Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman Miller. The select committee will reconvene. 

The next panel will be made up of Charles Patrick Ewing, who is 
Associate Professor of Law and Psychology, State University of 
New York at Buffalo; Lenore Walker, who is the Executive Direc- 
tor of Domestic Violence Institute, Denver, Colorado; and Darrell 
Pope, former lieutenant detective, Michigan State Police, Pensaco- 
la, FL. 

Mr. Ewing, we will start with you. 

STATEMENT OF DR. CHARLES PATRICK EWING, ASSOCIATE 
PROFESSOR OF LAW AND PSYCHOLOGY, STATE UNIVERSITY OF 
NEW YORK, BUFFALO, NY 

Dr. Ewing. Mr. Chairman, each year, hundreds of thousands of 
American women are physically, sexually and psychologically 
abused by the men in their lives. We have already heard compel- 
ling testimony to that this morning. 

Most of these women suffer in silence, but a small percentage, 
perhaps several hundred a year, strike back with deadly force. As a 
psychologist, an attorney and a law professor, I have recently com- 
pleted and published a study of 100 cases in which battered women 
have killed their batterers. I would like to share with you some of 
what I have learned about why battered women kill, what happens 
to them when they do, and why I believe that many, if not most of 
these women are doubly victimized, first by the men who batter 
them and then by our criminal justice system. 

First, let me address the issue of why battered women kill. The 
battered women whose cases I have studied and those I have exam- 
ined have a great deal in common, whether or not they have killed 
their batterers. To begin with, they have all been subjected to 
brutal physical abuse. They have been punched, kicked, strangled, 
shot and stabbed. They have been beaten and attacked with guns, 
knives, razors, broken bottles, iron bars, baseball bats and automo- 
biles. They have beaten with belts, chains, clubs, chairs, lamps, 
wrenches and hammers. Their injuries have ranged from cuts and 
bruises to lacerations, fractures, dislocations, miscarriages and in- 
ternal bleeding, concussions and subdural hematomas. 

Most of these battered women have also been tormented psycho- 
logically and sexually. Their batterers have terrorized them with 
weapons and have threatened to kill them and their children if 
they ever reveal the abuse or try to leave the relationship. 

Most of these women have also been raped by their batterers and 
many have been forcibly sodomized, sexually abused with a variety 



112 

of objects and forced to commit unspeakable sexual acts. Many of 
these women have been raped in front of their children. 

Finally, most of the battered women I have studied were trapped 
in battering relationships, and this is a very critical point because 
the most frequent question asked about a battered woman, espe- 
cially one who kills her batterer, is, "Why didn't she leave?" 

The answer is that battered women stay with their batterers for 
a variety of reasons beyond their control. Many lack the financial 
resources needed to leave; friends and family often disbelieve them, 
blame them and /or encourage them to remain with their batterers. 
The police and the justice system often refuse to see woman-batter- 
ing as a crime and deny battered women the kind of respect and 
assistance routinely afforded other crime victims. 

Aside from battered women's shelters which, even if available, 
provide, at best, only a temporary refuge, most battered women 
and their children simply have no safe place to go. 

Finally, many batterers threaten battered women and/or their 
children with more severe abuse, even death, if the women try to 
leave the relationship. 

In recent years, battered women who kill their batterers have 
been the subject of numerous reports in the popular media. Gener- 
ally, these reports convey the impression that many, if not most of 
these women, are acquitted on grounds of self-defense. One article 
in Time Magazine said: "An array of women have managed to walk 
away unpunished after killing their husbands or even former hus- 
bands." 

Nothing could be further from the truth. The 100 cases I have 
studied clearly refute this media myth. Among these 100 women 
who killed their batterers, nine pleaded guilty to homicide charges, 
three pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity and three had the 
charges dropped against them before trial. The remaining 85 out of 
100 all went to trial claiming self-defense. Sixty-three were convict- 
ed of some form of criminal homicide. Twelve were sentenced to 
life in prison; the others received sentences ranging from four 
years to 25 years in prison. Seventeen women received prison sen- 
tences potentially in excess of 10 years. 

Why are so many battered women homicide defendants convict- 
ed, despite their claims of self-defense and despite generally abun- 
dant evidence of the abuse they had suffered at the hands of the 
men they killed? The answer to that question requires consider- 
ation of the facts in the cases and the legal doctrine of self-defense. 

Consider, first, the facts. In every one of these 100 women's cases, 
the women had been subject to repeated, often severe physical 
abuse by the men they eventually killed. In 41 of the 100 cases, the 
batterer had threatened to kill the woman. Thirty-nine of these 
women had been threatened and/or assaulted with a weapon and 
in several of the cases, the batterer had threatened to kill the 
woman's children and/or her family. 

As a practical matter, given the nature and the extent of the 
abuse these women have been subjected to, it is no wonder that 
most of them claim to have killed in self-defense. As a legal matter, 
however, it is also no wonder that in most of their cases, their 
claims of self-defense were rejected and they were found guilty. 



113 

The criminal law doctrine of self-defense varies somewhat among 
jurisdictions, but generally justifies the use of deadly force only to 
protect oneself from the imminent infliction of death or serious 
bodily injury. The "self in self-defense law refers only to corporeal 
aspects of the human existence, physical life and bodily integrity. 

The problem for most of the battered women in the 100 cases I 
studied was that they killed their batterers, not while they were 
being battered, when their fear of death or serious injury might 
well have appeared reasonable to a jury, but rather, sometime 
after a battering incident. Not surprisingly, about a third of these 
women killed their batterers while their batterers were physically 
attacking them. The remaining two-thirds killed their batterers 
sometime after they were physically battered or verbally abused, 
and in at least 18 cases, the killing took place while the batterer 
was asleep or nearly asleep. 

To conclude, though, as juries seem to be doing, that most bat- 
tered women who kill their batterers do not do so in what reason- 
ably appears to be a threat of imminent death or serious bodily 
injury is not necessarily to conclude that these women did not act 
in self-defense. 

On the contrary, I believe — I am convinced that many, perhaps 
most of these women, including those who kill outside of direct con- 
frontations with their batterers, do kill in self-defense, although 
not in the unduly narrow legal sense of that term. 

As I just indicated, current self-defense law equates "self with 
only the physical side of existence, physical life and bodily integri- 
ty. But outside the law, "self is commonly understood to encom- 
pass not only those physical aspects of existence, but also psycho- 
logical functions, attributes, processes and dimensions of experi- 
ence that give meaning and value to our physical existence. 

If "self is viewed from this broader and more commonly accept- 
ed perceptive, it seems clear to me that many, indeed, perhaps 
most battered women who kill their batterers, do so in self-defense. 
They kill to prevent their batterers from damaging, if not destroy- 
ing, psychological aspects of their "self that give meaning and 
value to their lives. In short, they kill in what I call "psychological 
self defense." 

Chairman Miller. Let me interrupt you just for a second and 
then you can proceed in the manner which is most comfortable. I 
have just been informed that we are going to have to be out of here 
at 1:00. Your written statement will be placed in the record ajid so, 
to the extent that you can, summarize so we can have a little bit of 
questioning. I am sorry to do this to you, but the Chair was not 
aware of this when we started. 

Dr. EwiNG. Sure, I will push it along faster. 

While these women may not be faced with the choice of killing 
or being killed at the moment, many are confronted with a dilem- 
ma nearly as dreadful. They are unable to escape from the batter- 
ing relationship so they face the choice of killing either the bat- 
terers or themselves or being reduced to a psychological state in 
which their continued physical existence will have little, if any, 
meaning or value. 



114 

Whatever we choose to call this state, life without feeling alive, 
partial death or simply utter hopelessness, the net result for the 
battered woman is a life hardly worth living. 

Should battered women or anyone else who uses deadly force to 
avert that result, to prevent what reasonably appears to be the 
threat of psychological destruction, be branded criminals and sent 
to prison? I do not think so, but that is precisely what is happening 
in this country now. 

Battered women are being doubly victimized, once by the men 
who batter and brutalize them and again by a justice system that 
refuses to treat battering as a crime and then holds battered 
women to an unrealistic standard of accountability when they seek 
to protect themselves. 

In a book I have recently published called "Battered Women 
Who Kill," I proposed that state lawmakers act to put an end to at 
least part of that double victimization. Specifically, I have proposed 
that the self-defense law be expanded to justify the use of deadly 
force where such force appeared reasonably necessary to prevent 
the infliction of extremely serious psychological injury. Under this 
doctrine, extremely serious psychological injury is defined as gross 
and enduring impairment of one's psychological functioning which 
significantly limits the meaning and value of one's physical exist- 
ence. 

The doctrine I have proposed would not, nor should it, exculpate 
all battered women who kill their batterers. The justification of- 
fered by this doctrine is necessarily narrow and would apply only 
where the defendant could prove that her lethal act was reason- 
ably necessary to protect herself from the infliction of the most ex- 
treme kind of psychological harm. 

Under my proposal, the defendant would also be required to 
prove that she had been battered, or at least threatened with bat- 
terer, at or some time near the time she used deadly force. 

Legal recognition of this proposed doctrine of psychological self- 
defense would, of course, not put an end to battering. This is 
merely the tip of the iceberg. Nor should it exculpate all battered 
women who kill their batterers. The justification, as I have said, is 
necessarily narrow and would apply only where the defendant 
could prove that her lethal act was reasonably necessary to protect 
herself from the infliction of an extremely serious psychological 
harm. 

Still, legal recognition of this doctrine would have significant 
impact, both practical and symbolic on domestic violence and that 
impact would apply not just to battered women who kill, but bat- 
tered women more generally. 

As a practical matter, recognizing this doctrine would provide 
jurors with a legal basis for acquitting those battered women de- 
fendants who, by virtue of their psychological plight, do not de- 
serve to be convicted or punished, but would not be acquitted under 
current self-defense law. Under current law, these women can be 
acquitted only through jury nullification; that is, the jury's willing- 
ness to ignore the law given to them by the judge. 

Under the doctrine I propose, the legal fate of these women 
would be determined by an honest application of the law, rather 



115 

than by the unpredictable wilUngness of some sympathetic jurors 
to ignore the law. 

Finally, symbolically, legal recognition of this doctrine of psycho- 
logical self-defense would benefit not only those few battered 
women who kill their batterers, but the vast majority who do not. 
In recognizing this doctrine which would have its primary applica- 
tion in domestic violence cases specifically where battered women 
kill their batterers, the law would fully and unequivocally acknowl- 
edge the dreadful psychological plight of these women, as well as 
the cost. that plight exacts from these women, their children and 
from society as a whole. That kind of acknowledgment, I think, 
would surely help call attention to the serious problem and serve 
to promote commendable efforts currently underway to eradicate, 
or at least reduce the incidence and severity of women-battering. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Dr. Charles Patrick Ewing follows:] 



116 



Prepared Statement of Dr. Charles Patrick Ewing, Associate Professor of 
Law & Psychology, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY 

Each year, hundreds of thousands of American women are 
physically, sexually and psychologically abused by the men in 
their lives. Most of these women suffer in silence, but a small 
percentage — perhaps several hundred a year — strike back with 
deadly force. Having recently completed and published a study of 
100 cases in which battered women killed their batterers, I would 
like to share some of what I have learned about why battered women 
kill, what happens to them when they do, and why I believe that 
many if not most of these women are doubly victimized, first by 
the men who batter them and then by our criminal justice system. 

First let me address the issue of why battered women kill. 
The battered women whose cases I have studied and those I have 
examined have a great deal in common, whether or not they have 
killed their batterers. To begin with, these women have all been 
subjected to brutal physical abuse. These women have been 
punched, kicked, strangled, shot and stabbed. They have been 
attacked with guns, knives, razors, broken bottles, iron bars, 
baseball bats, and automobiles. They have been beaten with belts, 
chains, clubs, lamps, chairs, wrenches and hammers. Their 
injuries have included cuts, bruises, lacerations, fractures, 
disclocations, miscarriages, internal bleeding, concussions, and 
subdural hematomas. 

Most of these battered women have also been tormented 
psychologically and sexually. Their batterers have terrorized 
them with weapons and have threatened to kill them and their 
children if they ever revealed the abuse or tried to leave the 
relationship. Most of these women have been raped by their 
batterers and many have been forcibly sodomized, sexually abused 



117 



with a variety of objects, and compelled to engage in bestiality, 
bondage and other sadomashochistic sexual acts. Many of these 
women have been raped in front of their children. 

Finally, most of the battered women I have studied were 
trapped in the battering relationship. This is a critical point 
because the most frequent question asked about a battered woman, 
especially one who kills her batterer, is: "Why didn't she 
leave?" The answer is that battered women stay with their 
batterers for a variety of reasons beyond their control. 

As a result of constant and uncontrollable abuse, many 
battered women come to suffer what psychologists call "learned 
helplessness." They become passive, lose their motivation to 
respond, and conclude that nothing they do will alter any outcome. 
Eventually they cease trying to avoid the abuse and fail to 
recognize or take advantage of available avenues of escape. 

But learned helplessness is only part of the story. Battered 
women are also trapped in battering relationships by other 
more tangible factors. Many lack the financial resources needed 
to leave their batterers. Family and friends often disbelieve 
them, blame them and/or encourage them to remain with their 
batterers. Often the police and the justice system refuse to see 
woman battering as a crime and deny battered women the kind of 
respect and assistance afforded other crime victims. Aside from 
battered women shelters, which — if available — provide at best 
only temporary refuge, most battered women and their children 
simply have no safe place to go. Finally, many batterers threaten 
battered women and/or their children with more severe abuse, even 
death, if the women ever even try to leave the relationship. 



e 



118 



My research and that of others suggests that battered women 
who kill are often more severely abused and have fewer resources 
than battered women who do not kill. Battered women who kill have 
generally been more frequently beaten, threatened with weapons, 
and subjected to threats of death. They also seem to have 
suffered more serious physical injuries. Finally they seem to be 
generally somewhat older and less well educated than battered 
women who do not kill. 

In recent years, battered women kill their batterers have 
been the subject of numerous reports in the popular media. 
Generally these reports convey the impression that many if not 
most of these women are acquitted on grounds of self-defense. As 
one article in TIME magazine put it, "an array of women hav 
managed to walk away unpunished after killing their husbands or 
even former husbands." 

The 100 cases I studied clearly refute this media myth. 
Among these 100 women who killed their batterers, nine pleaded 
guilty to homicide charges, three entered pleas of not guilty by 
reason of insanity, and three had the charges against them dropped 
before trial. The remaining 85 women all went to trial claiming 
self-defense. Sixty-three were convicted of various forms of 
criminal homicide. Twelve of these women were sentenced to life 
in prison. The others received sentences ranging from four years 
probation (with periodic incarceration) to 25 years in prison. 
Seventeen women received prison sentences potentially in excess of 
ten years. 

Why are so many battered women homicide defendants convicted 
despite their claims of self-defense and generally abundant 



119 



evidence of the abuse they suffered at the hands of the men they 
killed? To answer that question requires consideration of the 
facts of these cases and the legal doctrine of self-defense. 

Consider first the facts. Every one of these 100 women 
had been subjected to repeated, often severe, physical abuse by 
the men they eventually killed. Eighteen had been raped, forcibly 
sodomized and/or otherwise sexually abused by the men they 
eventually killed. Three of these women also reported that their 
children had been sexually abused by the men they killed. 

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, nearly all of these 
women reported having been subjected to extremely severe 
psychological abuse by the men they killed. Among the indignities 
to which these women had been subjected by their batterers were: 
the kilsling of family pets, beatings in front of their children, 
the keeping of a miscarried fetus in the family freezer, forced 
prostitution, gang rape, and the physical and sexual abuse of 
their children. In one case, the batterer forced the woman's face 
into a mound of red ants. In another, the batterer tied the woman 
up and forced her to watch while he dug her grave. 

Many of these women had contacted the police repeatedly and 
had sought and obtained court orders of protection, essentially 
evicting the batterer. In none of these cases was the criminal 
justice system abl-e to keep these men from returning and battering 
these women. Indeed, several of these women actually left their 
batterers and fled to other parts of the country. The batterers 
tracked them down and forced them back home at the point of gun or 
knife. 



120 



In 41 of these 100 cases, the batterer had threatened to kill 
the woman. Thirty-nine of these women had been threatened and/or 
assaulted with a weapon. And, in several cases, the batterer had 
threatened to kill the woman's children and/or family. 

As a practical matter, given the nature and extent of the 
abuse to which these women had been subjected, it is no wonder 
that the vast majority of them claimed to have killed in self- 
defense. As a legal matter, however, it is also no wonder that in 
most cases their claims of self-defense were rejected and they 
were found guilty. The criminal law doctrine of self-defense 
varies somewhat among jurisdictions, but generally self-defense 
law justifies the use of deadly force only to protect oneself from 
the imminent infliction of death or serious bodily injury. The 
"self" in self-defense law refers only to the corporeal aspects of 
human existence — physical life and bodily integrity. 

The problem for most of the battered women in the 100 cases I 
studied was that they killed their batterers not during a 
battering incident, when their fear of death or serious bodily 
injury might well have appeared reasonable, but rather sometime 
after a battering incident. Not surprisingly, only about a third 
of these women killed their batterers while the batterers were 
physically attacking them. The remaining two-thirds killed their 
batterers after being physically battered or verbally abused. 
In at least 18 cases, the killing took place while the batterer 
was asleep or nearly asleep. 

To conclude, as juries seem to be doing, that most battered 
women who kill their batterers do not do so in response to what 
reasonably appears to be a threat of imminent death or serious 



121 



b.odily injury is not necessarily to conclude that these women did 
not act in self-defense. On the contrary, I am convinced that 
many, perhaps most, of these women, including those who kill 
outside of direct confrontations with their batterers, do kill in 
self-defense, although not in the unduly narrow legal sense of 
that term. 

As I indicated earlier, current self-defense law equates 
"self" with only physical life and bodily integrity. But outside 
the law, "self" is commonly understood to encompass not only those 
corporeal aspects of existence, but also psychological functions, 
attributes, processes and dimensions of experience that give 
meaning and value to physical existence. Despite disagreements as 
to its precise parameters, "self" clearly encompasses both the 
physical and mental being and thus includes such recognized and 
socially valued psychological attributes as security, autonomy, 
identity, consciousness, personality and spirituality, to name but 
several. Furthermore, it has long been understood that harm to 
the psychological aspects of the self can be just as detrimental 
as injury to the physical or bodily aspects of the self. Indeed, 
some theorists regard serious psychopathology as largely a product 
of injury or threat to the psychological components of the self. 

If "self" is viewed from this broader and more commonly 
accepted perspective, it seems clear that many, indeed probably 
most, battered women who kill their batterers do so in self- 
defense. They kill to prevent their batterers from damaging, if 
not destroying, psychological aspects of the self that give 
meaning and value to their lives. In short, they kill in 
what I have chosen to call psychological self-defense . 



122 



While these women may not be faced with a choice of killing 
or being killed, many are confronted with a dilemma nearly as 
dreadful. Unable to escape from the battering relationship, they 
face the "choice" of killing (either their batterers or 
themselves) or being reduced to a psychological state in which 
their continued physical existence will have little if any meaning 
or value. Whatever one chooses to call this state -- "life 
without feeling alive," "partial death," or simply utter 
hopelessness — the net result for the battered woman is a life 
hardly worth living. 

Should a battered woman — or anyone else — who uses deadly 
force to prevent that result, to avert what reasonably appears to 
be the threat of psychological destruction, be branded a criminal 
and sent to prison? I think not, but that is precisely what is 
happening in many cases under current self-defense law. Battered 
women are being doubly victimized: once by the men who batter 
and brutalize them and again by a justice system that refuses to 
treat battering as a crime and then holds battered women to an 
unrealistic standard of accountability when they seek to protect 
themselves. 

In my recently published book. Battere d Women Who Kill; 
Psychological Self-Defense as Legal Justification , I have proposed 
that state lawmakers act to put an end to at least part of that 
double victimization. Specifically, I have proposed that self- 
defense law be expanded to justify the use of deadly force where 
such force appeared reasonably necessary to prevent the infliction 
of extremely serious psychological injury. Under this doctrine, 
extremely serious psychological injury would be defined as gross 



123 



and enduring impairment of one's psychological functioning which 
significantly limits the meaning and value of one's physical 
existence. 

The doctrine I have proposed would not, nor should it, 
exculpate all battered women who kill their batterers. The 
justification offered by the doctrine is necessarily narrow and 
would apply only where the defendant could prove that her lethal 
act was reasonably necessary to protect herself from the 
infliction of extremely serious psychological harm. Under my 
proposal, the defendant would also be required to prove that she 
was battered or at least threatened with battering at or sometime 
near the time she used deadly force. 

At first glance, this proposed doctrine of psychological 
self-defense may seem radical. In fact, however, it is not only 
in keeping with the basic principles of criminal law but also has 
ample precedent in current law justifying the use of deadly force. 

Law is a reflection of social values and society generally 
accords paramount value to the preservation of life (i.e., 
physical existence) — generally but not always. In other legal 
doctrines, the law give precedence to psychological values even 
over preservation of physical life. Consider, for example, the 
defense of habitation. As a rule, deadly force may not be used 
justifiably to protect one's property. Yet many jurisdictions 
regard deadly force as legally justifiable when used to prevent 
unlawful entry into one's home even where there is no anticipation 
of death or serious injury to the occupants. 

Consider also the legal doctrine of "retreat." If one is 
attacked by another, may he stand his ground and respond in kind 



124 



(even to the extent of killing the attacker) even though he could 
easily avoid further confrontation by retreating (i.e., by running 
away)? The answer in most jurisdictions is "yes." There is no 
requirement that one retreat from an attack before using deadly 
force, even if one could do so with complete safety. The 
rationale for this so-called "true man" rule has a clear 
psychological basis. As one leading legal scholar has written, 
"There is a strong policy against the unnecessary taking of a 
human life [but] there is [also] a policy against making one act a 
cowardly and humiliating role." 

Even in jurisdictions where retreat is required, there 
remains an overriding concern for what is essentially a 
psychological interest in security: one need never retreat when 
attacked in one's own home or place of business. This so-called 

"castle"" doctrine derives from the ancient notion that "a man's 
home is his castle." Similarly, there has long been a common law 
recognition of the right to use deadly force to resist being 

wrongfully dispossessed of one's dwelling place. 

Given these doctrines which clearly place greater value on a 

defender's psychological well-being than on an attacker's physical 

life or bodily integrity, it seems reasonable to argue for a more 

general privilege of psychological self-defense. If the law is 

willing to justify the sacrifice of human life to prevent the 

humiliation of the "true man" or to protect the sanctity and 

security of his "castle," why should it not offer similar 

justification when life is sacrificed to protect other concerns 

even more fundamental to one's psychological self? 



125 




doctrine I have proposed, the legal fate of these women would be 
determined by an honest application of the law rather than the 
unpredictable willingness of some sympathetic jurors to ignore the 
law. 




80-78A 88 - 5 



126 



cost that plight exacts from these women and from society as a 
whole. That kind of acknowledgement would surely help call 
attention to this serious problem and serve to promote efforts 
currently underway to eradicate or at least reduce the incidence 
and severity of woman battering. 



127 

Chairman Miller. Thank you. 
Ms. Walker. 

STATEMENT OF LENORE E. WALKER, ED.D., A.B.P.P., PRESIDENT 
AND PSYCHOLOGIST, WALKER AND ASSOCIATES, DENVER, CO 

Ms. Walker. Hello, Mr. Chairman. I want to start by saying 
"Thank you," not only for calling these hearings today, but for 
your long, sustained interest in this area. I have had the privilege 
of testifying before you before and it is rare and wonderful, on 
behalf of all the battered women and battered children, that you 
have sustained this kind of interest in this terrible problem. 

I want to echo some of what Dr. Ewing has testified. When I last 
was before this committee, I believe I had been a recipient of some 
Federal monies to do research in the area of battered women. My 
prepared testimony today is not on the particular issues that re- 
search covered, and I am sorry some of our Congressmen are not 
still here who earlier in this hearing wanted such information. You 
know, when you are sitting in this room and you are waiting your 
turn, you want to be the researcher who can answer some of the 
questions that they are asking. I hope the Congressmen can be re- 
ferred to the earlier hearings. 

Instead, what I am concentrating on today is the double jeopardy 
that battered women go through, even when we think we are doing 
the best in changing some of the laws for them. 

We had no idea when we first recommended some of the changes 
to help battered women get free of batterers through some changes 
in the civil laws, particularly dissolution of marriage laws, that 
what we would face were men who would not let these women go, 
no matter what we would do. The point of separation is, indeed, the 
most likely time that a woman and her children may be killed. It is 
also the time period when they have the least amount of support 
for them. 

One of the most insidious forms of keeping battered women in 
the situation, even when we help them learn how to terminate the 
relationship and develop some of the self-esteem that they lost 
through that relationship is the new trend across this nation in 
joint child custody and visitation laws. The trend in this country 
which is an important one, is towards having divorcing men, as 
well as women, have their rights respected as to access to their 
children. 

Unfortunately, these new laws are placing battered women in 
jeopardy because they must be the ones to effect the visitation, or 
even more insidiously, they are not permitting them to leave the 
community should the woman need safety. I could not help but 
think, when Mrs. Martin was testifying earlier today, how, if she 
were to go through the courts and if there was a joint custody law, 
she probably could not leave, as was suggested, even though that 
maybe the only way she will be able to get free from this man's 
abuse. 

The courts throughout the country are indeed keeping women 
there. I have changed much of my work to be more of a forensic, 
rather than a research and a clinical psychologist because that is 
the area that I see battered women needing our assistance by being 



128 

able to educate the courts. It is slow. It is judge-by-judge, court- 
room-by-courtroom. My work takes me all over the country. I have 
testified, I think, in about 30 States, as well as in Federal court, in 
criminal matters as well as in civil matters. If we continue this 
way of educating people, I think we will not have the kind of 
timely relief that battered women and their children need. 

I have made about 10 recommendations attached to my testimo- 
ny. I know we do not have time to go through all of them, but I 
just want to touch on some of them very briefly. 

The first one is that I would like to see this Congress make some 
recommendation to the various States that are looking at joint cus- 
tody or who already have joint custody laws to take the onus of 
burden of proof away from the battered woman, that she has to 
prove that she is battered before an exemption will apply to her, 
and instead, place it on a batterer to prove he is a fit parent. 

We know from our research data — that children who witness bat- 
tering are 700 times more likely for boys to grow up and be bat- 
terers, even if they are not abused, but if they simply witness their 
father beating their mother. We know that that puts women at a 
greater risk should they find themselves in a relationship with a 
batterer, that they will have more difficulty in leaving that rela- 
tionship. 

I also believe that we need to change our labels in our child pro- 
tection laws so that witnessing abuse in their home is defined as a 
threat of harm to children. If we make those kinds of simple 
changes, I believe we can get child protective services to become 
more involved in the psychological abuse of children and the ex- 
treme impairment to their development that results from staying 
in these homes or having to go back and forth between a mother 
who is trying to protect herself and who is very fearful of the bat- 
terer and a father who is still psychologically abusive, if not phys- 
ically abusive, certainly intrusive in the child's life and so restrict- 
ing the child's healthy development by having such a lack of re- 
spect of those people's own boundaries and those people's limits 
that they cannot develop healthy, in a psychological way. 

So I think if we can do some of that, we will make some steps 
toward improvement. The State of Minnesota has taken some steps 
and added to some of their laws so that they are able now to pre- 
vent any batterer who poses a threat to the child's mother or to 
the child not to have visitation unless it is supervised. I think we 
need to encourage those kinds of laws on a state-by-state basis so 
that we protect children and we protect woman. 

In my prepared testimony, I give some horror stories. I must tell 
you I just flew here this morning on a red-eye special, which I am 
sure you are familiar with, from California, where I testified in 
San Diego in a death-penalty phase of a case with a battered 
woman who was accused and convicted of conspiring with a group 
of marines to kill her abusive husband. 

In that courtroom, testimony in the guilt phase on the abuse was 
so severely restricted that that jury did not hear what this woman 
had gone through and could not consider that in their delibera- 
tions. Interestingly, in the penalty phase, which is what I testified 
in, I was permitted to testify to her abuse. 



129 

The judge made a comment to the lawyers that he knew who I 
was, or he knew of me, because he had just heard a different case 
earher that year which was a Montana case that I worked on in 
1983. What he said was that I must have been in cahoots with the 
lawyers and that my work could not have possibly been based on 
any valid information at that time. And so what he did in this ear- 
lier case was change custody to a man who forum-shopped; who 
previously had gone all the way up to the Montana Supreme Court, 
where they upheld the district court's recommendation that the 
father not have custody of this child. The mother applied to the 
court and did get permission to move to San Diego. The jurisdiction 
was changed to California by this judge in San Diego and who then 
gave joint custody to the mother and father in that court even 
after Social Services, other psychologists and another lower court 
adjudicated that the child had been sexually abused by this father. 

So we are now seeing judges who are uninformed and unim- 
pressed by abuse data like this judge who changed custody in this 
case because he claimed the mother was overly restricting the fa- 
ther's access to this child. 

Now this mother, surely, was placed in a double bind. If she 
would have permitted the access to visitation that was unsuper- 
vised. Social Services, which was involved in the case, might well 
have removed the child from her care because she was not taking 
protective steps for a child that they adjudicated was sexually 
abused. If she did not grant the visitation, then the judge took the 
child away from her. That is what this particular judge, who is 
hearing the same death penalty case, has done. Clearly, he does not 
understand what has happened to battered women and that this is 
a terrible legal jeopardy for both of these women who are in his 
court. This is magnified across the country and I am not quite sure 
exactly how we stop it; how we stop the harassment that many of 
these men use the court systems to perpetrate on women and on 
children. 

Many of the men stop their physical abuse only to use the courts 
to starve women because they have to go back in again and re- 
spond to all of their motions. We have to find a way to be able to 
do that without taking away people's right to use the courts for le- 
gitimate redress. 

We also have to find a way to stop the mediation, the forced con- 
ciliation and mediation that battered women are, at times, forced 
to go into. The courts have looked upon this as a way to try and 
resolve some of their very heavy caseload. In some cases, that is 
perfectly appropriate and useful; for battered women, it simply is 
not. You cannot mediate and negotiate with someone who is will- 
ing to brutally hurt you at the same time. You are going to give 
away everything in order to feel safe. That is what happens to bat- 
tered women. 

So we need to find some way to tighten up those loopholes in 
those laws. 

I do not go quite as far as Dr. Ewing does in changing some of 
our self-defense laws to psychological abuse, although I think we 
have the technology to do it adequately. We can, as psychologists, 
measure psychological abuse. We can differentiate that now. We 
can measure psychological impact from all the different forms of 



130 

violence, which is one way of saying we do not just have to depend 
upon the woman's story or the child's story. We can have some in- 
dependent corroboration. 

I would like to see us start incorporating that in our self-defense 
laws. I think we also need to change some of our civil tort statutes 
and eliminate the time period that we have for filing claims. I be- 
lieve it was District Attorney Holtzman who talked about that ear- 
lier. 

When we have a time clock ticking for people who are battered, 
we put them at a disadvantage. Incest victims, battered women, 
battered children do not always know when they are really 
harmed; and even when they find out that they are harmed, they 
may not be psychologically ready to take legal steps that they 
might be ready to do after they have had some treatment. So I 
would like to see us remove that from some of our statutes. 

I would also like to suggest that we pay very special attention to 
poor women and women of color and children of color. My experi- 
ence in the legal system over the last 10 years is that those are the 
people who are even more disadvantaged than other women are. In 
my data of homicide cases of battered women who have killed in 
what I believe is self-defense, black women were twice as likely to 
be convicted of a homicide, as compared to nonblack women, even 
when all the other factors were held pretty constant. So I think we 
have some triple jeopardy, if you will, for women of color and of 
poor women. 

Finally, I would recommend that Congress appropriate more 
money for research funds. I would have jumped in during the 
debate about pornography on the fact that we need more research 
in that area, and those are funds that should be allocated so that 
we can clearly look at some of the social science data which do not 
yet make the kinds of correlations discussed, even though we know 
how abhorrent it is to have sexually explicit and sexually violent 
materials and what that does to people's self image. We do not 
have the social science data yet, and I think good research monies 
can provide it. 

We have some fine researchers across the country, some good 
psychologists of whom I am aware. 

Lastly, I would recommend that every single mental health, med- 
ical, education and legal training institution, if they get Federal 
funds, be required to have course work in the whole area of domes- 
tic violence and violence against women and children. We are not 
training people to deal with it adequately and they are perpetuat- 
ing even more abuses on people. 

Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Lenore E. Walker follows:] 



131 



Prepared Statement of Lenore E. Walker, Ed.D., A.B.P.P., President and Psy- 
chologist, Walker and Associates, Denver, CO 

RECOWMENDATIOWS 



It is reco*»ended that child custody laws be changed to 
exclude joint or exclusive custody as an option for 
BATTERERS who do not demonstrate competence to jointly or 
individually parent their children without posing as a 
threat to the woMen or children. The burden of proof should 
be upon the abuser to prove he has changed his behavior and 
has the requisite parenting skills. 

It is recoanended that no visitation or supervised 
visitation be granted to BATTERERS until they demonstrate 
they are no longer a danger to the battered women or 
children. The burden of proof should be upon the abuser to 
prove he has changed his behavior and has the requisite 
parenting skills. 

Family court laws should be changed to prevent batterers 
from using the courts to continue his abuse and harassment 
of battered women. 

Child abuse laws should be changed to reflect the threat of 
harm to a child who witnesses spousal abuse. Child 
Protective Services should be empowered to act and provide 
services on behalf of these children and their mothers. It 
is especially urgent to upgrade child protective services 
workers' ability to properly investigate child sexual abuse 
claims in high risk violent families during the period of 
divorce. 

It is recommended that mediation not be used as an 
alternative to regular court hearings in cases where wife 
battering is alleged. 

It is recommended that the time period for filing civil tort 
claims for damages be eliminated in cases where women and 
children have been abused in their homes. 

It is recommended that self defense statutes be amended to 
include justification for those battered people who 
demonstrate that battered woman syndrome, battered child 
syndrome, battered man syndrome, child sexual abuse 
accommodation syndrome, rape trauma syndrome and other 
subcategories of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder caused them 
to reasonably perceive that serious bodily harm or death was 
imminent. 



132 



d. It is reconnended that the rules of evidence be modified to 
reflect battered women's experiences and ability to present 
their best version of the facts. Battered women perceive 
their abuse In the context of their environment. It is 
perceived as a pattern, not just a single, discrete event. 
The interviews with battered women reveal that they are more 
likely to tell their story if allowed to speak In their own 
way. When their attempts to speak are objected to because 
of legal procedures requiring them to separate facts from 
opinions and context. they perceive It as being silenced 
once again. 

9. It is recommended that the committee pay special attention 
to the needs of poor women and women and children of color 
who are even less well served by the legal system. 

10. It is recommended that all mental health, medical, 
educational and legal training institutions be required to 
teach professionals the issues confronting battered women 
and their families. It is also recommended that all federal 
and state agencies whose jurisdiction may Impact upon 
battered women provide employees with in-service training in 
this area. 



133 



DOUBLE JEOPARDY FOR BATTERED WOMEN 

Invited Testimony To the 
Congressional Committee on 
Children, Youth, and Families 
September 16, 1987 
Lenore E. Walker, Ed . D . 
President and Psychologist 
Walker 6. Associates 
50 S. Steele Street, Suite #850 
Denver, Colorado 80209 
(303 322-3444 



In the past decade researchers and service providers have 
noted the dramatic change in the attitudes of the American public 
toward battered women. For the most part, battered women are no 
longer automatically seen as masochistic or even as deserving of 
their fate, but rather as the victims of the abuser's violent 
acts. Despite these major changes, there has persisted a naive 
belief that if the battered woman could be persuaded to terminate 
her relationship with the batterer, then she will be able to live 
free from actual or threats of violence. The batterer's 
continual abuse through stalking the woman and harassing her, 
especially around child custody and visitation issues was 
unanticipated. Long after the marriage bonds are severed, 
battered women's lives are still in jeopardy. Men who batter 
women simply do not let them go. 

JEOPARDY CONCERNING CHILDREN 

Child Custody 

RECOMMEND CHANGES TO JOINT CUSTODY LAWS : 

One of the major issues which keeps a battered woman tied to 
the man who has abused her is the presence of children. The 
trend toward a presumption of joint custody, which is so popular 
in a large number of states, actually holds a battered woman 
hostage in the same community as the batterer, allegedly for the 
sake of the children. She usually is not permitted to move or 
make any major decisions about the children without the court's 
permission. This effectively continues the batterer's power over 
her life choices and it keeps her in close enough proximity for 
him to continue his abusive behavior including surveillance and 
harassment toward her . 



Under these new child shared custody laws, joint custody may 
be challenged for cause but this usually means that a battered 
woman must provide the court with adequate proof that she has 



134 



been battered and that the children were harmed. Even if she can 
prove her own abuse, which is most difficult, the impact on the 
child of her abuse is not understood by the courts. Many courts 
demand evidence that the woman is still in danger of being harmed 
which is difficult to prove if the woman is exercising her newly 
learned skills to protect herself from the abuser. Further, some 
courts expect her to live up to the unwritten "good" battered 
woman standards which frequently means she cannot fight back to 
protect herself or her children, she cannot demonstrate her 
legitimate angry feelings towards the abuser, and she cannot 
evidence any symptoms of psychological distress from the abuse 
such as Battered Woman Syndrome. 

Custody evaluators, often appointed by the court to assist 
in making custody determination also place a battered woman in 
double jeopardy through their erroneously determining that the 
psychological signs of Battered Woman Syndrome, which is a 
subcategory of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, are evidence that 
the woman will not be an effective parent. These professionals 
often do not know that this situational disorder will usually 
abate once the woman perceives safety. Custody evaluators are 
frequently untrained in the area of domestic violence and are 
easily seduced by the batterer's apparently charming and sincere 
manner. In Denver, one district court judge recently estimated 
that the man wins custody in at least 40t of the contested 
custody cases, many which are brought by men who batterer woman. 
For some battered women, the only way to be free of the abuser's 
influence is to leave home without her children. Few women are 
willing to do this voluntarily. 

In one recent case. my client was told by the custody 
evaluators to move back to a small, rural town or the 
evaluator would recommend that the father have custody of 
the 3 young children. This man admitted beating his wife in 
front of the children and then, forcing them into his car in 
an attempt to kidnap them. But, the evaluators down played 
the importance of this information instead placing greater 
reliance on the man's promise never to do it again. He was 
a well dressed, prominent lawyer in that town. They 
believed that the children's observable anxiety would abate 
by moving back to the small town. My client felt too scared 
and unprotected to return and so, was forced to allow 2 of 
the children to live with their father for six months, until 
a counselor from the abusive men's program helped change the 
custody team's opinion. Six months was too long a period of 
time for a 3 and 5 year old child to be away from their 



135 



primary care mother. 

There are no data to document that 30int custody with 
parents in close proximity is beneficial to the child who 
witnesses or experiences violence at home. In fact, the only 
research available which demonstrates that joint custody is in 
the beat interests of the child is only when both parents can 
agree and jointly plan their child's future. This cannot happen 
in battering relationships because batterers who need power and 
control, cannot engage in shared activities. Moving children who 
have witnessed violence at home back and forth on weekly or 
biweekly schedules robs them of their need for stability and 
consistency, two essential elements for positive child 
development which are missing in abusive homes. At best, these 
children are forced to cope with transitions between totally 
dissimilar homes. They must learn to negotiate with a man who is 
known to use terrorist tactics in his interactions. Joint 
custody is not in the best interests of the child who has lived 
with witnessing or experiencing family violence. 

In one of my cases in Iowa, a six year old boy has 
spent the past two years living alternate weeks in each 
parent's home. The child has significant emotional problems 
which are seen as the mother's fault because she cannot 
manage his angry aggressive behavior. Another explanation, 
that the child is only able to express his anger toward his 
mother because he is too scared of his father is not given 
much credence. The court is unwilling tp change the joint 
custody arrangement without proof that the child is actually 
being physically abused. Evidence that witnessing parental 
abuse is damaging to a child's development is not sufficient 
for this court. 

This woman has been continually harassed by the child's 
father and just last month was again beaten by him while the 
child and his friend looked on, helplessly. Only after the 
children reported what they witnessed to the police were 
assault charges filed. Still, the court refused to change 
this dangerous custody arrangement. This battered woman's 
choice is to give up her child or continue to be abuse. 

I URGE THIS COMMITTEE TO RECOMMEND CHANGES TO THE JOINT CUSTODY 
LAWS TO EXCLUDE BATTERED WOMEN. THE BURDEN OF PROOF SHOULD BE 
SHIFTED TO THE ABUSER TO PROVE HE IS CAPABLE OF JOINTLY OR 
INDIVIDUALLY PARENTING THE CHILD. 



136 



Vlaitation : 

RECOMMENDATION - NO VISITATION FOR BATTERERS WHEN DANGEROUS TO 
MOTHER AND/OR CHILD. 

Many battered women are forced Into dangerous contact with 
the abusive partner in order to follow court orders concerning 
visitation arrangements for the children. Frequently, these 
children do not want to go; they are frightened that they will 
not be returned, that their mother will be harmed, or that they 
themselves might be hurt. Children who witness their father beat 
their mother demonstrate a range of psychological symptoms which 
interfere with their healthy development. Some researchers 
compare their responses to those of children who give up under 
active war conditions. Often, they become so anxious that they 
develop physical and psychological trauma sequelae. Sometimes 
the anxiety can be traced directly to watching the violence or 
being yelled at themselves. Other times, they pick up their 
mother's fearfulness. In any case, this anxiety interferes with 
children's ability to grow, mature, and develop good learning 
skills. 

Studies demonstrate that children who witness family 
violence are 700 times more likely to become abusive if they are 
boys and submissive if they are girls. Witnessing violence must 
be labeled as emotional abuse and considered a threat of harm to 
children in the child abuse codes so that Child Protective 
Services and social services departments nationwide can intervene 
and protect battered women and their children. 

Frequently, battered women who are more attuned to danger 
cues, recognize their children are at risk of harm before it 
becomes apparent to others. If they report their fears, they 
typically are ignored, labeled hysterical, or seen as revengeful. 
My experience urges more careful attention be given to their 
reports . 

In one recent Colorado case, a woman I will call Sue 
was so seriously battered by her second husband that she was 
hospitalized several times. In order to protect the two 
older children Sue sent them to live with their father in a 
midwest state. Evidence of the abuse including proof of 
bullet holes on the ceiling of their home which came when he 
shot at her were introduced at the divorce hearing. She was 
awarded custody of their two year old child while he was 
granted liberal visitation privileges. 



) 



137 



Sue had to hire a body guard to help her conduct the 
visitation exchanges. After several trips, the body guard 
quit because of the peril he was placed in. Sue tried to 
get the court to modify the visitation order, but the beat 
the judge would do was to allow the exchange to occur in a 
public place rather than at Sue's home. The child continued 
to return from the visits scared and upset, telling Sue 
tales of guns and drugs. During one visit two thugs broke 
into the father's home, beat him up, and tied up the child 
and placed him in the closet. Still no relief was granted 
from the judge who also had presided over the thugs' trial 
and sentenced them for their criminal acts. 

Finally, Sue was so frightened and desperate that she 
took her child and fled the state without the court's 
permission. She wanted to be closer to her other children 
and as far away from the batterer as possible. 

The judge was so angry that he changed custody to the 
batterer in an export order. He found her in contempt of 
court and ordered her to cure her contempt by giving the 
child to his father. The Colorado Supreme Court later 
stayed the action in a special writ. 

Sue had written the judge a letter giving a forwarding 
address, so he did not file federal kidnapping charges. 
But, the child's name was placed on the missing child's list 
and his picture appeared on the milk cartons despite my 
pleas to the local Child Find agency not to encourage this 
abusive man. Sue lived underground and in fear for over one 
year while the legal proceedings went on around her. Her 
lawyer and I were warned we were in danger of contempt if we 
did not give the court her address if and when we learned 
it. Two states fought over the jurisdictions. 

After two years. Sue once again has legal custody of 
her son. But, the child's father still has liberal 
visitation rights provided the child's psychologist agrees 
it is in the child's best interests to see his father. 
Still ignored is the danger to the battered woman should he 
exercise these visitation rights. State Supreme Courts have 
gotten involved in other battered woman decisions, too. 



138 



In another case, this time in Montana, the State 
Supreme Court has taken 3urisdiction in the supervision of a 
child's Visitation orders after the father was allowed to 
use the legal system to harass his formerly abused wife. 
Here, the father first accused the mother of exposing their 
four year old child to a man who sexually abused him and 
when that complaint was unfounded then accused her of the 
alleged sexual abuse. With the encouragement of a 
psychologist who testified that he monitored the father and 
child using videotapes, the father kidnapped and held the 
child in a secret place for five months. Even after he was 
jailed for contempt, it took another week for the father to 
turn over the child to Social Services. To make matters 
worse, this man court shopped, persuading a Tribal Court and 
then the Juvenille Court to take jurisdiction. Finally, 
after another six weeks, the Supreme Court returned the 
child to his mother and stopped visitation until the child's 
safety could be determined. Most of the child's symptoms of 
emotional distress have abated after six months. 

Several psychologists treating the child and the mother, 
including myself, have come under the threat of lawsuits for 
stating our opinions about other psychologist and lawyers 
actions. I have had to hire a lawyer to deal with this case. It 
is still not over after three years of litigation. 

Child Sexual Abuse : 

RECOMMEND NEW LAWS TO PROTECT CHILDREN AT HIGH RISK FOR INCEST 

Research demonstrates that children who live with men who 
physically, sexually and psychologically batter women are at 
higher risk to be sexually abused. This is particularly true 
when the batterer is known to sexually abuse his partner. These 
men have not developed the normal boundaries between themselves 
and other family members and do not perceive that incest is 
either wrong or harmful to the child. Assessment techniques make 
it possible to identify some of those children at high risk, 
especially when pre-incest sexual conditioning is observed. 
Frequently, if a battered woman reports her observations and 
suspicions, she is viewed as vindictive and punished by the 
social services or court system. Her sensitivity to these 
conditioning activities, often from her own sexual abuse either 
as a child or an adult, is reinterpreted to mean that she is over 
identified with the child. Many battered women do not report 
their suspicions until they are out of the dangerous 



139 



relationship. Yet. accusations o£ sexual abuse during custody 
fights are the least well investigated. I recommend that child 
protective services workers be trained to better evaluate 
accusations of child sexual abuse in battering relationships, 
especially during divorce. 

Double Jeopardy with Batterer's Use of the Legal System for 
Harassment 

RECOMMENDATION-COURTS BE EMPOWERED TO STOP MEN FROM USING THE 
LEGAL SYSTEM TO HARASS THEIR FORMER SPOUSES. 

Some men literally starve battered women by refusing to 
comply with orders until the very last minute when they give her 
only part of the money she is owed. Women are forced to spend 
tens of thousands of dollars to fight battles in court instead of 
in their homes. They borrow the money from family, sell their 
assets, or make payments for long periods of time. Many women 
]ust can't handle the financial stress, they give in to the 
batterers' demands hoping he will stop when he gets what he 
wants. Unfortunately, in many cases, he continues for years. 

In a recent Oregon case, a woman killed her former 
husband after 12 years of being dragged into court. 
Although he lost each motion and refused to comply with the 
court's recommendations on how he could get what he wanted, 
he kept filing again and again. After being served with one 
more set of papers to appear in court, the woman went to 
plead with him to stop the harassment. THe visit ended when 
he threatened her and she shot and killed him. 

This is a dramatic case but it underscores the detrimental 
effect such continued use of the legal system has on a battered 
woman. It prevents her from healing and getting on with her 
life. New father's rights groups are encouraging the continuous 
use of the legal system. In Denver, the local group is headed by 
the abusive ex-huaband of one of my clients. He has assault 
convictions for beating up two different women. Allowing 
batterers to take over these organizations confuses their 
purpose, which is to provide advocacy for men who are 
legitimately denied their rights. 



140 



Double Jeopardy Through Forced Mediation 

RECOMMEND MEDIATION N O T BE US ED IN CASES WHERE SPOUSE ABUSE 15 
ALLEGED . 

A popular alternative, to reduce litigation in civil and 
criminal areas nas been to force disputants to mediation. Its 
coat saving features and the high rate of voluntary compliance in 
certain cases makes mediation an attractive alternative, 
especially in jurisdictions with crowded court calendars. It is 
dangerous for battered women to go to mediation even with 
sensitive and well trained mediators. In order for mediation to 
be effective both parties must be able to negotiate fairly. 
Battered women who are always scared of making the man angry 
cannot bargain away their safety. They frequently have made 
major concessions prior to coming to mediation and perceive any 
further compromise as unfair. Often, they give in to anything 
just to get away from the man's intimidation. Batterers use 
coercive techniques to get what they want. They will not play by 
fair rules or negotiated settlements. Thus, the psychological 
characteristics of batterers and battered women make mediation a 
poor choice for resolving their disputes. 

At the United Nations End of the Decade for Women Conference 
in Nairobi in 1985, I attended the sessions on Women. 
Development, and The Law. There I was struck by the similarities 
of mediation to the old custom of having an honored wise person 
resolve disputes m developing countries. Only when the laws 
were changed and dispute resolution techniques codified could 
women make progress toward equality in those countries. We 
should pay attention to this lesson. It is my opinion that 
mediation is a step backward, not forward m our nations quest 
±or equality. 

Double Jeopardy in Civil Tort Actions 

There are numerous other areas of double jeopardy for 
battered women in civil and criminal proceedings. Battered women 
may not recognize or be in a position to file a civil tort action 
for damages within the time period specified in most state 
courts. My research on learned helplessness would suggest that 
they will be less likely to file for relief, even after they 
learn they have been harmed. I have worked on cases, of women 
who want to file as long as 40 years after termination of the 
relationship. Perhaps financial jeopardy will act as a deterrent 
to some abusive men. This should also hold for child sexual abuse 



141 



victims. The healing process can take an unpredictable number of 
years, even after discovery of the in3ury. I RECOMMEND THAT 
THERE BE NO TIME LIMITATIONS ON WHERE A BATTERED WOMAN OR CHILD 
SEXUAL ABUSE VICTIM CAN FILE A TORT ACTION FOR DAMAGES. 

Double Jeopardy When the Battered Woaan Becomes a Criminal 
Defendant . 

Much of my forensic psychology work has been in the criminal 
courts where battered women victims become defendants because of 
acts they do to protect themselves from another battering. 
Sometimes they commit crimes under duress such as forging checks, 
selling and possession of drugs, and burglary. Others kill in 
self defense or defense of others such as their children. Other 
family members also kill to protect the battered woman. I have 
testified in cases where fathers. sons, and daughters were 
charged with murder after killing an abusive son-in-law, father, 
or step-father or even mother. Providing a defense for these 
victims is difficult and costly. Often cases must be heard 
several times, usually because of the unclear status of 
introducing Battered Woman Syndrome testimony in the court. iT 
IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE NATION'S SELF DEFENSE STATUTES BE AMENDED 
TO INCLUDE JUSTIFICATION FOR THOSE BATTERED PEOPLE WHO 
DEMONSTRATE THAT BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME, BATTERED CHILD 
SYNDROME, BATTERED MAN SYNDROME. CHILD SEXUAL TRAUMA SYNDROME AND 
OTHER SUBCATEGORIES OF POST TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER CAUSED THEM 
TO REASONABLY PERCEIVE THAT SERIOUS BODILY HARM OR DEATH WAS 
IMMINENT. 

IT IS ALSO RECOMMENDED THAT THE RULES OF EVIDENCE BE MODIFIED TO 
REFLECT BATTERED WOMEN'S EXPERIENCES AND ABILITY TO PRESENT THEIR 
BEST VERSION OF THE FACTS. Battered women perceive their abuse 
in the context of their environment. It is perceived as a 
pattern, not just a single, discrete event. The interviews with 
battered women reveal that they are more likely to tell their 
story if allowed to speak in their own way. When their attempts 
to speak are objected to because of legal procedures requiring 
them to separate £actB from opinions and context, they perceive 
it as being silenced once again. 

Double Jeopardy For Poor Women and Women of Color 

I would like to RECOMMEND THAT THIS COMMITTEE PAY SPECIAL 
ATTENTION TO THE NEEDS OF POOR WOMEN AND WOMEN AND CHILDREN OF 
COLOR. My most recent research analyzing 125 battered women who 
killed in self defense indicates that Black women are twice as 



142 



likely to be convicted of murder than are white women even when 
all other factors are held constant. Poor women are less likely 
to receive an adequate defense. 

Finally, victim witness programs which are usually located in 
prosecutor's offices are perceived as the battered woman's best 
resource next to battered woman shelters until the victim becomes 
a defendant. Then, the potential for violating her rights to 
confidentiality, especially if she has used their services, is a 
high risk. Ah we design better laws and procedures to 
criminalize domestic violence, I add a caution not to take away 
any defendant's rights. Today's victim might be tomorrow's 
defendant . 

Thank you. 



Lenore E. Walker Ed . D . , A . B .P .P . 
Diplomate in Clinical Psychology 
Licensed Psychologist #419 
Member National Registry of Health 
Service Providers in Psychology 



143 

Chairman Miller. Thank you. 
Mr. Pope. 

STATEMENT OF DARRELL H. POPE, DET./LT., COMMANDING OF- 
FICER (RETIRED), SEX CRIME UNIT, MICHIGAN STATE POLICE, 
PENSACOLA, FL 

Mr. Pope. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportuni- 
ty to come before you to testify. 

Due to the time limit, since my testimony is already entered, I 
would like to address a few issues. 

Having been a police officer for 30 years, maybe I can look at 
some things with a different eye than our former witnesses, and I 
agree with what they have been saying. 

I would like to address three issues: the attitude of police officers 
toward the victim of sexual assault; number two, the effect of por- 
nography on the sexual offender; and number three, possibly some 
solutions. 

I was commanding officer of the Sex Crime Unit of the Michigan 
State Police for the 12 years prior to my retirement. During this 
time, in the State of Michigan, we had a law that requires law en- 
forcement agencies, upon arrest and conviction of a sexually devi- 
ant person, to submit forms to the Michigan State Police, to that 
Sex Crime Unit. 

During this period of time, we accumulated, from 1956 to the 
time that I did my research in 1977, we accumulated some 38,000 
case histories, which included everything from exhibitionism to 
lust murders. The research that I did was based on that, plus the 
opportunity that I had in that period of time to work with agencies 
within the State of Michigan, as well as on our own investigations 
of sexual assaults of women and children in our State. 

We dealt with, in those 12 years, going back and looking at and 
again, I am estimating the number — around 4,000 cases, including, 
as I say, exhibitionism all the way to lust murders; so we had an 
opportunity to talk not only to the victims, and in some cases, the 
offender, but also the police officer. 

I look back at my own history, having started in this business in 
1954, the training I received at that time was zero. There was no 
training. We were told, "Here's a badge, and a gun: go get them." 
That was predominant, I think, throughout the United States. 

The attitude of police officers in that era toward the victims of 
sexual assault was "I don't believe it. She's lying. She's trying to 
cover up for some promiscuous episode that she was involved in." 

That was basically — not everybody, you understand, but the ma- 
jority of our officers, I think, throughout the U.S. were in that cate- 
gory. 

I confess, I was guilty of that at the time when I first became an 
officer because that was my training. I am not excusing it. I should 
have been intelligent enough to figure out something else, but 
anyway, that occurred. 

As we progressed, it became obvious to us that there was some- 
thing wrong here, and in 1967, I took command of this unit and 
began to work with the people, and, having an opportunity to talk 
to police officers, began to ask questions of why, why this, why this 



144 

attitude of, "women are wrong?" They said, "Well, that's the way 
my training officer taught me," and we go back and back. 

We were given the opportunity then to begin to develop some 
training programs within my own department which later we were 
able to enlarge to where we not only taught sex crime investiga- 
tion, but we used in there— we brought in victims. As we have 
heard this morning, we had people in Michigan, women who were 
willing to come before these training sessions and tell the men 
what it was like to be a victim. 

As I think has been alluded to here this morning, the psychologi- 
cal factors— and I am sure that you all agree— are horrendous. 
They are just horrendous. We, as police officers, did not understand 
that because we had not been trained. We had not been educated. 

We began to teach throughout the state the fact of the attitude 
of dealing with women, and as I will allude to a bit later, some so- 
lutions that I feel can help is that we have just got to do something 
here. We have to do something, and we did. They gave us the op- 
portunity to travel, not only in Michigan, but later on in our 
career, we traveled in other states, lecturing to other states, again, 
always bringing up the fact of the attitudes of officers towards the 
victims of sexual assault. 

We later began to address— and again, these things take time— 
the fact that most states did not have any laws covering the assault 
against wives, girlfriends. It was one of, "Well, we can't do any- 
thing." Our hands were tied, and as you know, sir, unless you have 
a law, the police officer cannot do anything about it. You need ef- 
fective laws to do that and we did not have them. 

We would try and help the victims, the battered victims, the vic- 
tims who were assaulted, by offering to transport them places, but 
our hands were tied. And again, in the early years, we did not have 
the availability of crisis centers and that type of thing to help. But 
the attitudes, through training, began to change. In the mid-70s, I 
think, I observed a significant change, but it began back in 1968 
with the LEAA funding, which allowed a lot of officers to go to col- 
lege, to go to some training schools and become more knowledgea- 
ble of the attitudes of women and what psychologically and phys- 
ically took place. 

Thus, we saw again a change in attitude, but not a significant 
change. It was a very minute — it was only those officers who took 
advantage of the LEAA, which was very small, really, when you 
looked at the entire number of police officers sworn in the United 
States of America. 

But it began to change. We had a few, here and there. You have 
heard testimony about different States. We saw some changes and 
that was good. We needed that. We still need more. 

The attitudes have got to be changed of police officers towards 
the sexual assault of not only strangers, but of the domestic areas, 
the areas of the wife, the girlfriend. 

The number two issue is the issue does porno, in fact, affect 
sexual assault, and my answer very explicitly is yes. Being com- 
manding officer of the unit, and having the availability of these 
sexual reports, in 1977, I did a research project where I looked at 
38,000 case histories and found that 41 percent of those reports in- 



145 

dicated that, in fact, pornographic materials were used just prior to 
or during the actual act. 

In my testimony that you have, there are a couple of these case 
histories that I have cited, actual case histories, and I would like to 
cite just one more. 

This involves a 19-year-old boy who had gotten a hold of a porno- 
graphic material depicting autoerotic activity. Now, the maga- 
zine — and I do not have a picture of it with me, sir, but we have 
actual photographs of the boy who had replicated the magazine pic- 
tures. The young man is hanging by a rope around his neck, wear- 
ing many female garments, which is usually the case in autoerotic 
types of situations, and the magazine article, very ironically, lay at 
his feet, open to the page which he was replicating. In reading the 
article, the problem was that the article did not tell him he could 
die. It just told him about the wonderful experience he would have. 

That is only one. I could tell you of case histories that I have 
worked on in every area, everything from exhibitionism to lust 
murders. 

In 1978, we began to develop what we call a crime scene behavior 
analysis, in which we could profile the sexually motivated homicide 
and tell you the kind of people who did it. Again, in doing this, in 
talking, I had the opportunity to talk to some of these people who 
had committed lust murders. It was very fascinating. When you 
asked the perpetrator, the sex offender who would indicate or 
admit that he had used it, almost to a man, his answer was, "I 
used it for one of several reasons: One, to encourage me." He 
said — in some cases, I can remember talking to one young man 
who was 19 years old, he said, "It excited me and then I got to 
thinking about it and I wanted to know how it felt." 

This is this young man's answer. He wanted to know how it felt 
to rape a woman and kill her. And by the way, this was his girl- 
friend. So he did it. And when we arrested this young man and 
searched his home, we found a pornographic magazine depicting 
this very thing that he done. By the way, he had stabbed her 57 
times. 

Again, not to take up that much time, but we could go on with 
these stories. Does it affect it? You bet it does. It does affect it. 

I would like to spend a lot of time talking to the committee about 
many areas, but the third area I would like to look at are some 
solutions as I see it, as a police officer, former police officer. 

Training. It is imperative that we train the police officer, right 
from the man who receives the call at the desk, right on up 
through. As you have heard testified earlier, the prosecutors, the 
judges — we have to train these people. We have to educate 'them. 

I think we need to do things in our educational field, in colleges, 
in the criminal justice programs, things like that. It is just impera- 
tive that we do that. 

I think we need to educate victims. I think we really need to edu- 
cate victims. I think we need to have, from whatever sources, avail- 
able means to educate these victims in the fact that they are vic- 
tims, and I am looking at it from a policeman's point of view. 

I think, sir, that thirdly, we need laws. You are the experts in 
the law field. Does it start here at the Federal level or does it start 
with the State level? I think that — and has been testified earlier — 



146 

you are setting the example. You are championing the cause. You 
are leading the way. I think that things that you say to, perhaps, 
your state government, your people back in your home state and 
my home state and those others folks' home states, I think will 
help. We need to get busy and do some things. 

Thank you, sir. 

[Prepared statement of Det./Lt. Darrell H. Pope follows:] 



147 



Prepared Statement of Det./Lt. Darrell H. Pope, Commanding Officer (Retired) 
Sex Crime Unit, Michigan State Pouce, Pensacola, FL 

i would like to address three issues: 

1. The attitudes of policemen toward the crime of rape and toward the adult 

FEMALE victim OF THAT RAPE, 

2. The effects of pornography on the sex offender; and 

3. Some thoughts on a solution to these problems 

To introduce myself to you and provide some background on myself ~ I am a retired 
Detective/Lieutenant from the Michigan State Police^ with a Master's Degree from Michiga-i 
State University. My last 12 years with the State Police were spent as the Commanding 
Officer of the Sex Crime Unit. In this Unit we kept a file on all persons arrested and 
convicted for a sex offense according to the uws of the State of Michigan. These repor-s 
were submitted to us from all police agencies in Michigan. 

In 1967 the Sex Crime file had about 13^000 reports. When I retired^ there were abcut 
^iS^OOO reports. In 1958 we computerized this file and were the first State Police agency 
to have a state-wide computerized Sex Crime M.O. file. By doing this^ we were able to 
utilize this file to do research in order to ascertain the many aspects of sex crimes 
relative to profiles of the victim as well as the assailant. Via this system^ we learned 
A great deal about many aspects of sex crimes. 

The first issue to address here is the attitude of police officers in the U.S. towards 
the crime of rape and, directly related^ the attitude towards the victim. Back in igS^J 
there was not much training available for police officers except in the big cities and 
the State Police, I was first a Deputy Sheriff and at that timE/ the basic attitude was 
that most women were not really raped but it was a cover-up for their being promisicuous. 
Training was not available as to how to investigate a rape other than the normal training 

FOR investigation OF ALL CRIMES. 

In 1956 I JOINED the Michigan State Police and received some training. However, it 
WAS not as extensive as it currently is. Again, there was an attitude by police officers 

THAT MOST RAPES WERE NOT REALLY RAPES/ AND IT WAS FOR SURE THAT A FEMALE HITCHHIKER OR 
PROSTITUTE WERE JUST ASKING FOR IT. AlSO/ WOMEN WHO MET MEN IN A BAR COULD NOT BE RAPED 
AS THEY WERE JUST ASKING FOR IT. ThIS ATTITUDE PREVAILED THROUGHOUT THE 60'S - UNTIL 



148 



L.E.A.A. FUNDING CAME INTO PLAY IN EDUCATING THE POLICE OFFICERS AS WELL AS OTHER ARMS C- 

THE Criminal Justice field. (I will address this at a later time.) The problem was tha" 

EVEN THOUGH SOME POLICE OFFICERS TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE L.E.A.A. FUNDING^ WE STILL DID NO" 
SEE A BIG CHANGE IN ATTITUDES. 

Some officers throughout the U.S. began to realize that there were some areas of the 

POLICE officers' ATTITUDES THAT WERE ARCHAIC. ThE ATTITUDES TOWARDS SEX CRIMES AGAINST 
women WAS ONE OF THOSE^ AND IT OCCURRED ALL THE WAY FROM THE TIME THE REPORT WAS RECEIVED 
BY A DISPATCHER (AND HIS ATTITUDE)/ TO THE TIME THE CASE WAS TO 60 TO COURT. If A WOMAN 
DID GO TO COURT/ SHE WAS MADE TO TELL THE WHOLE STORY ON THE WITNESS STAND IN FRONT OF NOT 
ONLY THE JURY AND JUDGE/ BUT A COURTROOM FULL OF SPECTATORS. As IF THIS WAS NOT BAD 
ENOUGH/ SHE WAS THEN CROSS-EXAMINED BY THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY WHO COULD ASK HER ANY QUESTIONS 
HE WANTED TO ABOUT HER PAST SEXUAL ACTIVITIES. ThUS " TRYING TO DESTROY HER CREDIBILITY 
WITH THE JURY. 

In 1969 I BEGAN TO REALIZE THAT WE POLICE OFFICERS WERE WRONG ABOUT OUR ATTITUDES 
TOWARDS SEX CRIME VICTIMS. AT THIS POINT/ AND BEING INVOLVED IN MAINTAINING THE SEX CRIME 
FILES AND IN READING THE REPORTS AND ASSISTING MANY POLICE AGENCIES WITH THEIR INVESTIGA- 
TION OF THE CRIMES/ IT BECAME OBVIOUS WHEN TALKING TO A NUMBER OF FEMALE VICTIMS/ THAT THERE 
WERE A LOT OF EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES. LeT ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT I MEAN: 

Many victims may wait for A8 hours before reporting the crihe/ or even longer. Many 
police officers believed that because of the delay in reporting/ that there really 

wasn't a crime BUT THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO HIDE SOMETHING. WhAT WE DID NOT KNOW/ WAS 
ALL THE PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEMS SHE WAS FACING ~ LIKE FEELING DIRTY/ GUILTY/ ASHAMED/ AND 
MANY OTHER INNER FEELINGS. WHEN INTERVIEWING THEM/ MANY EXPRESSED TO ME: 'WHAT WILL MY 
FRIENDS THINK?'/ 'WHAT WILL MY HUSBAND THINK?' AlL THESE TYPES OF THOUGHTS DUE MOSTLY 
BECAUSE OF OUR SOCIETY'S ARCHAIC THINKING ABOUT RAPE VICTIMS. MANY TIMES WOMEN/ IN 
TELLING A POLICE OFFICER ABOUT BEING ATTACKED/ WILL LAUGH. We DID NOT UNDERSTAND THAT IT 
WAS A DEFINITE PSYCHOLOGICAL RELEASE. 

In THE EARLY 70'S/ THE StATE OF MICHIGAN BEGAN TO LOOK AT A MODEL "SeXUAL CONDUCT C:DE/' 
AND IN 1975/ THE STATE PASSED A SEXUAL CONDUCT CoDE WHICH DID A GREAT DEAL TO PROTECT THE 



149 



VICTIM AND ALSO HELP THE POLICE OFFICER AND THE PROSECUTOR. ABOUT THIS SAME TIME/ I BEG*'. 
TO TRAVEL AROUND THE U.S. LECTURING TO POLICE OFFICERS. ThE ONE MAJOR THING I FOUND IS 
THAT THEY ALL THOUGHT THE SAME WAY ABOUT SEX OFFENSES AND THE ADULT VICTIMS. In MiCHIGA'. 
WE BEGAN LECTURING ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE MUST TAKE A DIFFERENT APPROACH TO VICTIMS OF A 
SEXUAL ASSAULT. MANY OFFICERS FELT THAT RAPE WAS ONLY A SEXUAL CRIME. BUT AGAIN WE BEGAN 
TO FIND THAT RAPE IS A COMBINATION OF SEXUAL CRIME AND ASSAULT. In MANY CASES IT IS MORE 
ASSAULT THAN SEXUAL. In OTHER CASES. IT'S THE REVERSE. HOWEVER. IN THE MAJORITY OF CASES 
IT IS BOTH - THUS A CHANGE OF ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE CRIME ITSELF AND IN THE WAY WE APPROACH 
IT. 

It WAS AT THIS POINT WE BEGAN PROFILING THE OFFENDER BASED ON HOW HE TREATED HIS 
VICTIM AND WHAT HE DID JUST PRIOR TO THE CRIME AND WHAT HE DID AFTER TXE CRIME. In A LARGE 
PERCENT OF RAPES. THE VICTIM IS SLAPPED. STRUCK WITH A FIST. A WEAPON IS DISPLAYED OR 
SOMETIMES USED. ThIS THEN BECOMES A 'LUST" MURDER. TODAY. BY USE OF THE COMPUTER. WE CAN 
DO A GREAT DEAL IN HELPING POLICE OFFICERS CATCH A RAPIST BY PROFILING THE HAN. ThERE 
IS A GREAT DEAL TO BE DONE AND THAT IS WHY I AM HERE TODAY — TO HELP IN THIS MATTER. 

The SECOND point I would like to address IS THE EFFECT PORNOGRAPHY HAS ON THE SEX 
OFFENDER. ThE ONE THING THAT MUST BE DONE IS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT PORNOGRAPHY IS. In 
THIS WE HAVE A PROBLEM. THE UNITED STATES SUPREME CoURT HAS GIVEN ONE OPINION. WHICH IS 
FOLLOWED TODAY. AnD WHAT DOES A POLICE OFFICER CONSIDER PORNOGRAPHIC. AND SO ON. I CAME 
HERE TODAY TO TELL YOU WHAT I HAVE FOUND AS TO THE EFFECT OF PORNOGRAPHY ON THE INDIVIDUAL 
THAT COMMITS SEX OFFENSES. 

In 1968 THE Sex Motivated Crime Report, which is filled out by a police officer when 

A person is arrested AND CONVICTED OF A SEX OFFENSE. HAS A PLACE ON THE REPORT TO MARK 
IF PORNOGRAPHY WAS INVOLVED IN THE CRIME. ThESE REPORTS WERE MADE OUT BY POLICE OFFICERS 
FROM ALL OVER MICHIGAN - FROM THE ONE'MAN POLICE DEPARTMENT TO THE LARGEST POLICE 
AGENCIES. Thus, there is the situation where EACH OFFICER DETERMINES WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS 
PORNOGRAPHIC. 

When I decided to do some research for a paper during my Master's program. I called 



150 



MANY POLICE OFFICERS AND ASKED THEM WHAT THEY FELT WAS PORNOGRAPHIC. NEARLY EVERY POLICE 

OFFICER I ASKED (ABOUT 200) SAID HARD CORE " WHERE THERE ARE EXPLICIT PICTURES OF THE 

PRIVATES - AND SEX ACTS DISPLAYED. AgAIN^ I THINK AS ADULTS WE ALL HAVE THE COMMON SENSE 
TO KNOW WHAT PORNOGRAPHY IS. 

The next question I needed to have an answer to^ was how the sex offender used the 

PORNOGRAPHY/ OR IF HE DID IN FACT USE IT. My QUESTIONING OF THOSE WHO WOULD TALK TO ME 
AFTER CONVICTION/ AS WELL AS THOSE WHO WOULD TALK TO THE ARRESTING OFFICER INVOLVED WHO 
ASKED THEM 'DiD YOU USE PORNOGRAPHY JUST PRIOR TO THE ACT OR DURING THE ACT ITSELF/' WAS 
PART OF THE RESEARCH. DURING THIS RESEARCH I WAS GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO ASSIST AGENCIES 
WHERE PORNOGRAPHY PUYED AN IMPORTANT PART IN THE SEX OFFENSE. I WOULD LIKE TO TELL YOU 
OF SOME TRUE CASE HISTORIES: 

On A Saturday morning about IOam/ a 32 year old female stopped at the home of a 

38 YEAR OLD MALE/ WHOM SHE KNEW AND HAD SOLD A BOAT TO. ShE WAS STOPPING TO DELIVER THE 
registration FOR THE BOAT AND TRAILER. He INVITED HER IN FOR A CUP OF COFFEE. KNOWING 
HIM/ SHE SAW NO REASON NOT DO DO THIS. ThEY DRANK SOME COFFEE/ WHEN ALL OF A SUDDEN HE 
GRABBED HER AMD TOLD HER 'YOU ARE MINE.' He TOOK HER TO THE BEDROOM WHERE HE HAD TAPED 
TO THE HEADBOA.iD OF HIS BED/ SIX 8 X 10 COLORED PICTURES WHICH HE HAD REMOVED FROM A 
HARD CORE MAGAZINE. HE ALSO HAD A FLOOD LIGHT SET UP AS WELL AS A 35 HH CAMERA AND AN 
8 MM CAMERA. THE FIRST PICTURE SHOWED A FEMALE BEING UNDRESSED BY HER CAPTOR/ WHICH THE 
HAN PROCEEDED TO DO. ThE 2nD PICTURE SHOWED A FEMALE NUDE AND HANDCUFFED/ WHICH HE DID. 

The 3rd picture showed her shaved head and private parts/ which he did. The Ath picture 
depicted the female being sexually assaulted by two men and these tvo men were committing 

ABNORMAL ACTS/ WHICH HE DID. ThE 5tH PICTURE SHOWED THE MAN STRAPPING HER INTO THE 
ELECTRIC CHAIR/ AND IN THE 5tH PICTURE HE KILLED HER. In THE REAL SITUATION/ THE MAN 
REPLICATED THE FIRST *) PICTURES. THEN 5tHLY HE SHOWED HER A GUN AND TOLD HER SHE WAS 
GOING TO DIE. In THE 6tH INSTANCE HE WAS RAPING HER AND HAD PLACED THE GUN TO HER HEAD 
AND TOLD HER THAT THIS WAS THE END FOR HER. ThE SUBJECT HAD BEEN DRINKING ALL AFTERNOON 
AND BY THE TIME OF THE LAST ACT/ IT WAS ABOUT MIDNIGHT. AS HE RAPED HER/ HE FELL ASLEEP 
AND SHE WAS ABLE TO ESCAPE FROM THE HOME. 



151 



A SECOND STORY THAT WILL HELP ILLUSTRATE THE EFFECTS OF PORNOGRAPHY ON THE SEX 0FFEN:£R 
IS ONE WHERE TWO YOUNG MEN WENT TO A DRIVE-IN XX-RATED MOVIE. ThE MAIN THEME WAS OF TWO 
FEMALE TEENS HITCHHIKING AND BEING PICKED UP BY TWO YOUNG MEN IN A CONVERTIBLE WHO PR0CEE:ED 
TO PERFORM DIFFERENT SEX ACTS ON THE GIRLS AGAINST THEIR WILL " IT THEN RESULTING IN WILLING 
PARTICIPATION. AFTER THE MOVIE (ABOUT MIDNIGHT) THE TWO YOUNG MEN SAW TWO YOUNG LADIES 
HITCHHIKING AND PICKED THEM UP AND PROCEEDED TO A WOODED AREA WHERE THE TWO YOUNG LADIES 
RESISTED THEIR ADVANCES. ThE BOTTOM LINE " ONE GIRL WAS ONLY 13. ShE WAS RAPED AND THEN 
MANAGED TO ESCAPE AND HIDE. ThE OTHER GIRL WAS 16. ShE WAS RAPED AND WHEN SHE TRIED TO 
ESCAPE. THE BOYS BROKE HER BACK AND SHE LAY IN THE ROAD THE REST OF THE NIGHT UNTIL SHE WAS 
FOUND THE NEXT HORNING. 

These are only two of hundreds of actual case histories which I could use to illustrate 

MY POINT. It BECAME VERY OBVIOUS THAT PORNOGRAPHY CAN AND DOES AFFECT THE THINKING OF SEX 
OFFENDERS AND. IN MY OPINION. HAS A VERY DEFINITE AND DIRECT EFFECT ON THE SEX CRIME OFFENSE. 

In THE RESEARCH THAT I DID. I FOUND THAT ^ilZ OF ALL SEX OFFENDERS WHO COMMITTED SEX 
CRIMES. FROM EXHIBITIONISM TO THE LUST MURDER. DID USE SOME TYPE OF PORNOGRAPHY JUST PRIOR 
TO OR DURING THE ACTUAL ACT. ThE ^llZ FIGURE WAS FROM A TOTAL CASE HISTORY FILE OF 38.000 
CASES. 

The 3rd issue to be addressed, is the methods of correcting some of this. In a 

NUTSHELL " TRAINING. EDUCATION AND EFFECTIVE LAWS. ThUS - EFFECTIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT. 
I MENTIONED EARLIER THAT TRAINING HAS NOT BEEN UP TO A STANDARD THAT IT SHOULD BE. We IN 
THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE FIELD HAVE DONE A GREAT DEAL SINCE 1958. BUT NOT ENOUGH. ThE CRIMINAL 
JUSTICE FIELD PEAKED OUT IN ABOUT 1977. ThEN WE OBSERVED A DECLINE IN THE STRESSING OF 
EDUCATION AND TRAINING AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF EFFECTIVE LAWS. TRAINING IS ALWAYS AN 
ONGOING PROCESS IN ALL AREAS OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE FIELD. POLICE OFFICERS SHOULD HAVE 
TO HAVE CONTINUOUS INSERVICE TRAINING IN ALL FIELDS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT. ThERE MUST BE MOSE 
TRAINING IN THE INVESTIGATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULTS; RIGHT FROM THE INITIAL REPORT AND HOW THE 
DISPATCHER HANDLES IT ON THE PHONE. TO THE FIRST RESPONSE BY THE PATROL OFFICER. HiS 
ATTITUDE IS IMPORTANT "- KNOWING AND UNDERSTANDING THE EMOTIONAL STRESS THAT THE VICTIM IS 
GOING THRU. ThERE SHOULD BE TRAINING BY PEOPLE WHO HAVE THE EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE IN THE 



152 



FIELD — TO TEACH YOUNGER OFFICERS OR INEXPERIENCED OFFICERS. 

In Michigan, during the time that I was commanding officer of the Sex Crime Unit, we 

SPONSORED, coordinated AND TAUGHT A ONE'WEEK C^O HOUR) SEMINAR FOR POLICE OFFICERS FROM 

ALL OVER Michigan, and it grew to where officers from neighboring states came to this 

SEMINAR. It did A GREAT DEAL TO IMPROVE THE ARREST RATE AND CONVICTION RATE IN OUR STATE 
BECAUSE THE OFFICERS HAD A MUCH BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE ENTIRE PROCESS. WHICH INCLUDES 
NOT ONLY THE INVESTIGATION BUT IN WORKING WITH THE TRAUMATIZED VICTIM. ThIS PROGRAM IS 
AGAIN IN THE WORKS VIA THE MICHIGAN STATE POLICE. WHILE IN COMMAND OF THIS UnIT. I HAD 
THE PRIVILEGE OF TRAVELING TO VARIOUS PARTS OF THE U.S. LECTURING ON SEX CRIME INVESTIGATION, 
In THESE LECTURES WE TALKED ABOUT THE WAY A DISPATCHER SHOULD HANDLE A SEXUAL ASSAULT 
VICTIM ON THE PHONE. TO THE OFFICER'S ORIGINAL CONTACT WITH THE VICTIM. AS WELL AS THE 
PROFESSIONAL WAY TO INVESTIGATE THE CRIME WHICH INCLUDED THE REINFORCEMENT THE VICTIM NEEDS 

and must have. 

Many colleges are offering courses to police officers to better prepare them in how 

TO DEAL WITH THE SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIM. ThE MAJORITY. HOWEVER/ ARE NOT. We MUST ALSO WORK 
TO TRAIN AND EDUCATE THE PROSECUTORS AND JUDGES AS TO THE EXTENT OF STRESS AND TRAUMA WHICH 

is experienced by the victim of such a horrendous crime. 

Laws are needed that will assist the victim and give her greater protection from 

HARRASSMENT ON THE WITNESS STAND. I BELIEVE WE NEED TO DO A GREAT DEAL MORE TO HELP THE 
VICTIM GET THROUGH THE DIFFERENT STAGES OF TRAUMA ASSOCIATED WITH THIS CRIME. As AN 
EXAMPLE. PERHAPS THE POLICE OR THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE COULD EMPLOY FULL-TIME PERSONNEL TO 
DO NOTHING BUT BE SUPPORT FOR THE VICTIMS OF CRIMES — USING PERSONS WHO HAVE SPECIAL 
TRAINING IN COUNSELING - PERSONS WITH A DEGREE IN PSYCHOLOGY BUT WITH A SPECIAL EMPHASIS 
ON SUPPORT FOR OR REINFORCEMENT FOR VICTIMS OF CRIMES. 

In CONCLUSION LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT SOMETHING BE DONE TO DIMINISH 
THE CRIME OF SEXUAL ASSAULT. I BELIEVE A GOOD START IS A MOVE TO PASS LAWS TO CURTAIL 
PORNOGRAPHY. It WILL ABSOLUTELY HELP IN REDUCING CRIME. It WILL NOT STOP CRIME BUT IT 
SURELY WILL HELP REDUCE THE NUMBER OF RAPES WE ARE SEEING TODAY. 



153 

Chairman Miller. Thank you. Thank you very much for your 
testimony. 

I am not asking you to submit a full dissertation on this, but we 
do not experience this kind of problem with child abuse, do we? I 
mean, if you go into court, the hurdles that you have to jump? 

Ms. Walker. I do both kinds of 

Chairman Miller. Right, that is why I am asking you. 

Ms. Walker. I think it is much different in child abuse if there 
is physical abuse present. 

Chairman Miller. I understand all of the difficulty we have been 
watching, especially in my state, over the last several years of 
trying to prosecute child abuse and sexual abuse cases. I under- 
stand all that, but attitudinally 

Ms. Walker. You know, we do not, and one of the areas that I 
think is really significant is the danger that we, as professionals, 
even put ourselves in when we work in the area of spouse abuse 
versus the area of child abuse. 

One of my very close friends, an attorney in Denver, was shot by 
a police officer who was divorcing — he was accused of being a bat- 
terer — divorcing his wife in the courtroom and paralyzed. I know 
there are cases like that all over the country. That terrified me be- 
cause it could have been me in that courtroom as well. This man 
was angry. 

What we are dealing with is the most intense homicidal rage 
that comes at us, not only from the men who commit this violence, 
but from men who do not want to hear it. Those are the people in 
our court system. 

Chairman Miller. That is the jeopardy. 

Ms. Walker. Yes. 

Chairman Miller. Dr. Ewing, in your discussion of self-defense, 
some might say it is radical. I suspect there are a lot of people who 
would say that it is radical; except, as you point out in your testi- 
mony, there are other situations where the anticipation that you 
are about to enter into the danger zone, in fact, entitles you to take 
some actions. Obviously, the courts are full of people who argue 
back and forth whether or not that was reasonable action, reasona- 
ble anticipation, whether the action was justified and all that; so 
perhaps your notion is not as radical as it might appear at first 
blush. But I am troubled in this case about battered women. 

Some make the decision, apparently, that the only action they 
have left to them is homicide, and yet you walk away from that 
experience essentially saying that the current system simply fails 
to take into account what, in fact, is taking place in these situa- 
tions. 

I mean, is that what you are telling us? 

Dr. Ewing. The system, as it is structured now, creates the need 
that these women feel to kill and then punishes them for taking 
the only steps they have left to protect themselves. That is the 
double-victimization . 

As far as the radical nature of the proposal, you are right. What 
I left out for the sake of time, but what I would address in response 
to your question is that there are many situations in which we 
allow people to be justified in killing other people when they are 
not in danger of being killed themselves. 



154 

The "true man" rule, which I allude to in my written testimony, 
says that a true man should not have to walk away from a threat. 
So in most states of this country, if you come up to me and threat- 
en to kill me on the street, if I could run away from you— if I am 
the fastest runner in the world and I could get away from you with 
complete safety— the law says I can still stand my ground and kill 
you. Why? Because a true man does not walk away from a fight. 

Chairman Miller. The other example, and I do not want to get 
into a legal debate here, but the other example you used is that if 
someone intrudes in your house in the night 

Dr. EwiNG. Right. 

Chairman Miller [continuing]. Whether or not they intend to 
kill you, you may have the right to use force to 

Dr. EwiNG. Deadly force. 

Chairman Miller [continuing]. Deadly force, but I assume there 
that you take into that court with you what would be a reasonable 
person's assumption that that other person did not belong in your 
house that night. But that is a much more difficult case to make 
against a spouse or a lover or a friend in some instances. 

Dr. EwiNG. That is right. I agree with that, but that is just an- 
other example of where the law says we are going to exalt personal 
security, psychological security, over the physical life of an offend- 
er, somebody who is breaking into your house 

Chairman Miller. Let me ask you if you have to go as far as you 
went, because I am trying to think of the tolerance of state legisla- 
tures to engage in this activity (I am not sure whether the Feder- 
al Government ought to be setting forth criminal statutes in this 
area). At a minimum, it would seem to me that if a person— and I 
have a hard time saying this because I do not think you should be 
subjected to the standard— but at a minimum, if you have been the 
victim of repeated physical abuse, at some point it seems to me 
that you should be able to give argument to self-defense if you start 
to see the same circumstances starting to formulate. I mean, there 
is a pattern, if I am correct, in much of this abuse. It starts, in 
many instances, coming home late or an argument at the — I mean, 
there are patterns that women recognize where they say, "Oh-oh, 
you'd better get out of here or you'd better hope he falls asleep or 
you'd better hope something happens because you're about to enter 
the Twilight Zone here in terms of danger." 

It seems to me at some point, at a minimum, the courts ought to 
recognize that when a woman and her family and her children 
have been subjected to this kind of violence that it may be reasona- 
ble, in fact, for her now to take those steps in self-defense 

Dr. EwiNG. I agree 

Chairman Miller [continuing]. Before you decide just on the psy- 
chological protection, just on the physical protection. 

Dr. EwiNG. That is the way it ought to work. What I was going 

to say is 

Chairman Miller. No, it does not work, I understand that. But is 

that because the law precludes that 

Ms. Walker. Yes. 
Dr. EwiNG. Yes. 



155 

Chairman Miller [continuing]. Or is that an interpretation 
given? So are you saying you have to arrive at more expansive defi- 
nitions? 

Dr. EwiNG. I think Dr. Walker could address that. She has spent 
much of her career demonstrating that pattern that you talked 
about and in trying to testify in courts about that pattern in these 
very kinds of cases. I will let her tell you her experience. 

Ms. Walker. One of the difficulties is that it is often left to a 
trial court judge's discretion as to whether or not to admit that 
kind of testimony. So only if you have an enlightened judge will 
you get that testimony in. 

I believe — and I address it in my paper to some extent — that one 
of the difficulties is that we do not have that listed in the justifica- 
tion laws. If we were to add, I think, simply add a clause that al- 
lowed those displaying battered woman syndrome, which has 
abuse-accommodation syndrome or any one of the syndromes that 
we are now labeling them, the opportunity to provide evidence of 
justification, then a jury may be able to make a reasonable deci- 
sion. 

Now, right now, experts, if they are allowed in, can give their 
testimony when the woman herself may be precluded from giving 
that testimony because of the need for only the factual accounts 
that she is given in the Rules of Evidence. So I suggest changing 
those Rules of Evidence to allow battered women or to allow any- 
body, I think, to be able to give pattern testimony. You just cannot 
do that. Sometimes you have to stick to the discrete incident at 
issue and not the pattern. 

In my cases, I do not find as many battered women killing after- 
wards; I find them killing even before an incident because they, 
indeed, recognize a pattern. 

Chairman Miller. In anticipation, you are saying. 

Ms. Walker. Yes, sir. 

Dr. EwiNG. That is also after the preceding one. 

Ms. Walker. And they kill in the middle, you know. Just be- 
cause these guys stop for a while does not mean that they are fin- 
ished and not just taking a rest. 

Dr. EwiNG. If I could, I would just add to that that I think one of 
the areas in which Dr. Walker and I would disagree about this is 
that I think, even when the testimony comes in, the jury still hears 
from the judge that you cannot find this woman killed in self-de- 
fense unless she was in imminent danger of being killed or serious- 
ly injured and the facts only speak for themselves. 

Even where the most eminent expert in the country testifies on 
this issue. Dr. Walker, many of these women are convicted, not of 
murder, but of manslaughter. Manslaughter is still a very serious 
offense. 

Ms. Walker. I would agree, and we would not disagree on that. 
There is a lot of disagreement about jury instructions in the courts. 

Chairman Miller. You can see that this committee obviously 
finds this behavior unacceptable and is looking for a remedy. It is 
very difficult with respect to the legal changes, but let me just ask 
you if I am correct, in your experience, that there is sort of a dual 
barrier here. One may be that the law precludes the judge or the 
jury from making a certain decision or the prosecutor from enter- 



156 

ing into evidence certain facts or expert testimony. It also seems, 
from what Mr. Pope has said, what Ms. Holtzman said, and others, 
that you also have an attitudinal problem within this entire estab- 
lishment, whether it is from the officer who is called to the scene 
of a domestic incident and tries to figure out how soon he can get 
out of the neighborhood and go back to what he was doing, to the 
entire court system, the justice system. Perhaps there we have 
more opportunity because we have, from time to time, tried to pro- 
vide training money and money to change some of these attitudes. 
LEAA was an example, although I am afraid at that time they 
were buying more hardware than changing attitudes. If I look in 
the closets of my police stations, we were ready for anything. 

The Russians ought to be negotiating with my police depart- 
ments on disarmament. 

But my concern is that we do have an opportunity to enhance 
the ability of both the system and the victims in how to deal with 
this. There is some opportunity for a Federal role there. Whether 
or not HHS or the Department of Justice ought to get into writing 
model statutes for states with respect to the issues of self-defense, I 
think is a relevant question. At least, it seems to me that we ought 
to make some attempt at trying to have the Federal Government 
lead the way in the establishment of procedures for handling these 
cases. 

It does not appear that this is a minor part of the court's docket. 
This is a major workload within the justice system and certainly 
within the police system. As we have heard testified, a good portion 
of police officers who are either killed or injured on a yearly basis 
are responding to domestic quarrels. There is a lot of motivation 
here, it would seem to me, to start to get a system that can re- 
spond. 

I know when I have ridden with police officers in different juris- 
dictions, their biggest complaint is they very few tools. I think that 
is one of the reasons we see them excited about getting a shelter. 
At least when they go to the address, they now have one more 
option. They may be able to say to them, "If you would like to pack 
your bags and your children, I will take you to the shelter." 

It is another tool that they have at their disposal, but right now, 
again those are all exceptions to the rule. I mean, all of these pro- 
grams are exceptions in terms of the number of jurisdictions and 
the kinds of communities that suffer this. 

I hate to admit that this may not be the last hearing because I 
like to think that we could have some kind of a lasting impact. I 
want to thank you for your testimony because I think, in all of the 
suggestions — and they have ranged from the changes within the 
law in terms of how the justice system deals with this, as Mr. 
Ewing has suggested, and Ms. Walker, to the questions of training 
and providing some kind of support services for the people who 
deal in this, whether they are the prosecuting attorney or the 
police officers. How do we deal with this? The term "epidemic" was 
used here earlier, and clearly, it is one. We see in all of our other 
work on the Select Committee on Children and Families very little 
evidence that there is any, any opportunity at this point to dimin- 
ish what we have come to call "family violence." We are just into 
management at this point. We are not into prevention. We are not 



157 

into any of the things that we would like to see in terms of dimin- 
ishing this violence, especially when you see that the victims clear- 
ly are women and children and you have a system that cannot re- 
spond, or will not respond to that. 

I would just like to thank you very much and would ask for your 
help, because I think maybe we have to sit down outside of the 
hearing room here and think about what kind of approach the Fed- 
eral Government could take to be a catalyst, if you will, it is in 
large part an area of state law. But I think there is a federal role. 
We have done this before. We have seen successful efforts and 
where we have engaged in comprehensive training programs, we 
have seen good results in getting people to understand some of 
these problems. But this one is just out of control at this point. I 
think it has to be given some Federal attention. It is not being 
done currently at this level. 

Thank you very much, and again, my thanks to all of the wit- 
nesses who testified this morning. 

A couple of things, just for the record. I think, in one of the pre- 
vious testimonies we had of Mr. Sears, we had a study that was 
submitted on behalf of a Mr. Weaver. I think we do not have the 
whole study and I would just like the staff to find out if we can get 
the entire study. I think we have the conclusions for that purpose. 

["Effects of Portrayals of Female Sexuality and Violence Against 
Women on Perceptions of Women." Complete article is retained in 
committee files.] 

Secondly, I will submit for the record the ACLU comments on 
Section 2 of the Attorney General's report just for the record so 
that people can have both sides of that argument. 



80-784 88 - 6 



158 



Polluting the Censorship Debate 

A Summary and Critique of the Final Report 
of the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography 




Public Policy Report 
July 1986 



159 

Chapter 2: The History of Pornography 
Summary of Attorney General ' s Report 

(2.1) Pornography as Social Phenomenon 

Descriptions of sex, including comparatively explicit sexual 
references for entertainment or arousal are not recent phenomena, 
but are found in cultural records of ancient Greece and Rome, as 
well as Eastern cultures. However, "regulation of sexually 
explicit material is a comparatively recent phenomenon." This is 
in part because "xintil the last several hundred years, almost all 
written, drawn, or printed material was restricted largely to a 
small segment of the population that undoubtedly constituted the 
social elite." 

(2.2) Regulation and the Role of Religion 

The earliest enforcement efforts "were directed not against 
descriptions or depictions of sex itself, but only against such 
depictions when combined with attacks on religion or religious 
authorities." Heresy, blasphemy, treason, and sedition were 
severely sanctioned, but not sexually explicit portrayals 
alone. In England, sexuality itself was not a matter of 
governmental concern until 1663 when Sir Charles Sedley was 
convicted of indecent conduct after he took off his clothes, 
uttered profane remarks, and poured urine on a crowd. Even 
following this case, there was great reluctjuice to involve the 
legal system with publishing of sexually explicit materials, 
although occasional prosecutions occurred. 

(2.3) Obscenity Law — The Modem History 

In the early 1800s in Englemd such private groups as the 
Society for the Suppression of Vice launched campaigns against 
explicit material. The development of printing meemt that this 
material became more available to the masses: "Thus, the kinds 
of sexually explicit material that had circulated relatively 
freely in England among the elite during the eighteenth century 
emd earlier now became more readily availeJsle to everyone." When 
the audience was more "broad-based," the "material itself became 
not necessarily more explicit, but certainly briefer, simpler, 
and more straightforward." 

These private groups were legally abl& to commence their own 
criminal prosecutions, €md by the 1860s there were many 
prosecutions for "obscene libel" for distributing works viewed as 
immoral. These groups became more active with the development of 
photography which "not only increased the impact of the 
Materials, and therefore the offensiveness to many of the 
materials, but also increased their accessibility" to 
illiterates. 

In America, the first conviction for the common law crime of 



160 



"obscene libel" cxxzurred In 1815 in Pennsylvania, euid Veraont 
passed the first emti-obscenity statute about 1822. Most of the 
subsequent enforcenent efforts came froa private orgzmizatlons 
like Anthony Coastock's New York Society for the Suppression of 
Vice, created in 1873. Comstock's energies were devoted 
primarily to sexually explicit publications, particiilarly such 
sagazines ob The National Police Gazette , which were 
"comparatively unimportant works." He was a specially appointed 
agent of the Post Office Depeurtment, once enthusiastically 
declaring "I have destroyed 160 tons of obscene literature." The 
efforts of CoMstock and others made the market for this material 
"almost exclusively clandestine." In the first half of this 
century, prosecutions occurred against such works as Lady 
caiatterley's Lover , James Joyce's Ulysses , and Esquire magazine. 
When such works of obvious literary cind zurtistic merit were in 
court, production emd distribution of pornographic films, 
pictures and magazines was necessarily done "In a highly 
surreptitious fashion." 

So, until the late 1950s, there were visible prosecutions of 
books and films with substantial merit directed at the general 
audience as well as some against the more secretly distributed 
and more explicit material: "It was not until the eeurly 1960s, 
when the Supreme Coiirt begsm actively to scrutinize the content 
of materials found to be obscene, that attempted prosecutions of 
unquestionably serious works largely withered, and that most of 
the legal battles concerned the kinds of material more commonly 
taken to be pornographic." 

The Supreme Court's 1957 opinion in Roth v. United States ^ took 
the First Amendment "to limit the particular works that could be found 
obscene." In 1966, in Memoirs v. Massachusetts , ^ the Court held that 
material could be restricted only if it was "utterly without redeeming 
social value," a stringent st2mdard which made successful prosecution 
"extraordinarily difficult." This resulted in a phase of "essentially 
dormant" prosecutions, coupled with "a consequent proliferation of the 
open availability of quite explicit materials." This trend vslb but- 
tressed by the 1970 Commission's recommendation against restrictions 
of material for consenting adults. The Report, even though repudiated 
by President Nixon and a majority in Congress, "reinforced the 
tendency to withdraw legal restrictions in practice, which in turn was 
one of the factors contributing from the late 19608 onward to the 
volume emd explicitness of materials that were widely available." 

Supreme Court decisions in 1973 like Miller v. California , ^ 
however, reversed the "utterly without redeeming social value" 
standard, by "msUcing it clear once again that the First Amendment 
did not protect anything and everything that might be sold to or 
viewed by a consenting adult, tended to recreate the environment 
in which obscenity regulation was a practical possibility." 
Since then, the level of regulation has varied widely 
throughout the nation. 



161 



ACLU Response 

This entire chapter is a fairly straightforward and 
nonargumentative history of the regulation of sexually explicit 
materials. It is useful to highlight several features, however. 

First, there was no legal construct of "obscenity" until 
the development of the printing press, and later, photography, 
provided mass-produced materials for the general populaces. As long 
as sexual literature existed only for the elites, there was little 
interest in suppressing it. Routinely in the history of censorship, 
so long as the material did not reach the hands of the masse's there 
was a sense that it was not damaging. The wealthy and elite were able 
to deal with it responsibly; the common folk were not. 

Second, the brief history of Anthony Comstock is 
illustrative of the very close connection that may develop 
between a private group and a governmental agency (Comstock was a 
specially-appointed postal inspector while leading the New York 
Society for the Suppression of vice). Later in the report, the 
Commission embraces a system of private condemnation and civil 
actions, undertaken in close connection with law enforcement 
efforts, which snack of Comstock's return. 

Third, as in so many other sections of the Report, the 
Commission seeks to explain the growth of pornography by external 
forces: court decisions and the 1970 Report, for example. There 
is little acknowledgement that some (or even a great deal) of the 
expansion of availability of sexual materials has to do with 
inherent interest in sex. The 1970 Commission concluded that 
much of the reason sexually explicit material caused so much 
controversy was the "inability or reluctance of people in our 



162 



society to be open emd direct in dealing with sexual matters."* 
Although we are far from a sexually enlightened society today, 
our greater openness eOaout sex should be viewed as a reasoneible 
explanation for much of the growth in sexually explicit 
materials. 

Specific Supreme Court "tests" for obscenity are accurately 
described, and the ACLU criticism of these are located in the 
following section. 



163 



Chapter 8: The Role of Private Action 

Summary of Attorney General's Report 

(8.1) The Right to Condemn and the Right to Speak 

Citizens have every right to condemn a wide variety of 
material that is protected, amd properly so, by the First 
Amendment. Even where governmental action would be unwise or 
unconstitutional, some forms of communication may not be valuable 
and our society might be better off without them. In fact, the 
First Amendment clearly entitles persons to condemn the acts of 
government auid other matters which concern them, including 
sexually explicit material. Citizens should also recognize that 
"in many aspects of our lives to keep quiet is to approve." 

ACLU Response 

Obviously, the ACLU would be the first group to defend 
vigorously the right of American citizens to protest that which 
they detest and to petition their government to change policies and 
practices they think wrong. 

However, just as the Report notes that some forms of 
communication the government cannot regulate are nevertheless not 
valuable and would improve society by their absence, some forms 
of protest are unwise and deleterious to other values like 
diversity and privacy. The conclusion of this section notes that 
"to keep quiet is to approve." In fact, that is often not the 
case. To keep quiet may represent simply a tolerance for the 
rights of others who wish to see or do things which are different 
from those of the potential "protester." 

Summary of Attorney General's Report 

(8.2) The Methods of Protest 

Protest may include the formation of organizations to 
articulate a peurticular viewpoint, and picketing, marching, or 
demonstrating to attract attention cuid try to persuade others of 
their views. For citizens to protest near estsd^lishments which 
sell material they consider dangerous, offensive, or immoral is 



164 



also "folly vlthin the free speech traditions of this country" 
and remains so even if such protest discourages patrons who would 
otherwise enter those establishments. "If people feel that 
businesses, whether a local store or a multinational corporation, 
are behaving inappropriately, it is their right and their 
obligation to make those views known." Consumer boycotts, 
including urging of others not to patronize specific stores to 
mobilize consumer power for social 2md political aims, is also 
constitutionally protected action. 

ACLD Response 

There is no question that picketing, marching, demonstrating 

and even boycotting are all solidly "within the free speech 

traditions of this country." There is, however, always the 

question of the wisdom of such actions. These tactics are unwise 

if directed at removing literature from the shelves of stores or 

libraries, or films from theaters. It is one thing to urge that 

persons not read a particular magazine or see a particular movie; 

it is another when the goal is solely to make it difficult or 

impossible for those who do not accept the message of the 

protester to obtain that material. 

Summary of Attorney General's Report 

(8.3) The Risks of Excess 

It would be naive to ignore that the right to protest "may 
often be csurried to excess." citizens could urge refusal to shop 
at stores that carry National Review or The New Republic because 
of political disagreements, but we also have no doubt that the 
citizen who exercises his First Amendment rights in this maiuier 
could be criticized by most people, emd most of us would strongly 
support that criticism." This is because "there are positive 
values associated with the free flow of ideas auid information, 
and society is the loser when that process is unduly stifled." 
Protest can be directed in "societally harmful" ways: "If letrge 
numbers of people refused to patronize bookstores that sold Sin- 
clair Lewis's Elmer Gantry because it dealt with sexual 
Immorality by a minister, or if people picketed the residences of 
booksellers who sold James Joyce's Ulysses because of its sexual 
themes and language, this society would, quite simply, be the 
worse for it." This excess is a "real fear" and there is "no 
solution to this dilemma." Therefore, the Commission cem only 
"encourage people to object to the objectionable, but we think it 



165 



even more lBport:2mt that they tolerate the tolerable." 

ACLU Response 

In this section, the arrogance of the Commission perhaps 
reaches its highest level. It bemoans the possibility of 
"socially harmful" protest, using as a prime illustration the 
picketing of a bookseller trafficking in Ulysses . Our society, 
it notes, would "be the worse" for such conduct. Nevertheless, 
it celebrates precisely the same activities if directed at a 
convenience store which hawks Playboy or Penthouse from behind 
the counter. As long as the work is accessible only to the 
scholarly elite, it is wrong to protest it; but when the average 
person might be able to see it, then it should be driven from the 
community. 

Summary of Attorney General's Report 

(8.4) The Importance of Education and Discussion 

Positive educational efforts are "the real solution to the 
problem of pornography." Just as "images can cause certain forms 
of behavior . . . images ought as well to be able to prevent 
behavior, or cause different behavior." These positive efforts 
to communicate viewpoints which are contrary to those in much 
pornography cam come from many sources, since "[U]ltimately, a signifi- 
cant part of the concern with pornography is a concern about 
negative messages." Elimination of harmful messages will not be 
finally successful unless accompemied by positive efforts. More- 
over, mzuiy behaviors cannot, and should not, be regulated by laws 
alone. A "foundation of values is the glue that holds a 
democracy . . . together" and that is often derived from deeply held 
moral, ethical, and spiritual commitments. 

ACLU Response 

Here, finally is a breath of genuine First Amendment 

thinking. The ultimate solution to any perceived problem of "bad 

speech" is indeed the creation of alternative, affirmative images 

to counteract those felt to be negative. It is unfortunate that 



166 



this approach is really not that taken by the Commission. They 
have stemmed the possibility of any real marketplace of sexual 
ideas and images from emerging, by having governmental regulation 
and criminalization link arms with moral mob rule to change 
"appetites" by coercion, not choice. 

Summary of Attorney General's Report 

(Additional Data) Suggestions for Citizen and Comnunity Action 

"If enforcement mechanisms appear inadequate or ineffective, 
if legislative change is necesseury to enhance the effectiveness 
of the criminal justice system, or if the value of pornography or 
offensive material is a particular problem in the community, 
citizens should consider developing a community action program." 
It is also clear that "citizen groups may wish to focus on 
materials which aure not legally obscene euid which are 
constitutionally protected from government regulation." These 
"suggestions" are for those who wish to form or support a citizen 
action group; 

(1) Establish and maintain effective community action 
organizations. 

(2) Such groups cjui solicit support from a broad 
spectrrm of civic leaders and organizations. 

(3) Such groups can gather information on pornography 
in their communities. Citizens should familiarize 
themselves with pertinent legal decisions governing the 
control of obscene material. Then, citizens should survey 
"adults only" theaters and pornographic outlets, as well as 
retail magazine outlets, video cassette retailers, cable 
satellite and subscription television outlets, dlaJL-a-pom, 
hotels (which provide sexually explicit emd sexually violent 
movies) , and computer services. Information should be 
gathered regeording obscene as well as sexually explicit or 
sexually violent materiz^s. The proper officials should be 
contacted with regard to possible obscenity violations. 

(4) Groups can educate the public about the effect 
pornography has on their coiHunlty. 

(5) Groups can communicate with enforcement officials 
and prosecutors about the pornography in their jurisdiction 
emA alert them to obscenity and unlawful sexual activities. 
Police, local prosecutors, and federal officials should be 
queried about the level of obscenity law enforcement 
activities, the priority given these actions, and how they 
judge "community standards." 



167 



(6) Clt:lzens can file appropriate complaints with the 
F.C.C. about obscene broadcasts. 

(7) Groups could conduct a "court watch" program. 
Members can sit through judicial proceedings and then relay 
their thoughts to the involved law enforcement officieQs, 
the judge, the media emd legislators, and "publicly 
disseminate the information they have gathered when 
officials come up for re-appointment or re-election." 

(8) Groups could lobby for legislative chjmges in 
obscenity laws, including those which reflect Commission 
recommendations . 

(9) Groups cfui provide assistance cuid support to 
officials in the performance of their duties, including 
petition drives and electoreul support. 

(10) Citizens caui use grassroots efforts to express 
opposition to pornographic materials to which they object 
even if not obscene. Measures include picketing and store 
boycotts, and protests to cable companies or broadcast 
sponsors regarding offensive programming. There is a 
constitutional right to boycott for political purposes, 
although "citizens exercising these practices should be 
sensitive to the competing rights of others who adopt ein 
opposing viewpoint." 

(11) Citizens can exercise their economic power by 
patronizing businesses which demonstrate responsible 
judgment in the types of materials they offer. Moreover, 
"[B]usinesses which elect not to produce or distribute 
pornography in an effort to uphold or reinforce community 
standards should be commended." 

(12) Parents should monitor the music their children 
listen to and the recording industry should use discretion 

in the fare offered. The Commission believes that some album 
covers appear to meet the legal standard for obscenity. In 
addition, it endorses the November 1985 agreement between 
the Parents Music Resource Center and the Recording Industry 
Association of America in which albums containing explicit 
sex, violence, drug or alcohol abuse are either labeled with 
the words "explicit language" or "parental advisory" or have 
the actual language printed on the album jackets. 

(13) Taxpayer- funded institutions (schools, hospitals, 
prisons, military installations, etc.) should prohibit the 
production, trafficlcing, distribution, or display of 
pornography on their premises to the extent constitutionally 
permissible. 

(14) Businesses, as "corporate citizens," can support 
community efforts to control pornography. For example. 



168 



print:ers, warehouse operators, and credit: card companies can 
scrutinize their involvements to insure "they are not being 
unlcnowingly used as an instrument for the spread of obscene 
or pornographic material which the community has requested 
not be produced or sold on moral, social or other legitimate 
grounds." Responsible companies can also establish and 
participate in pornography "victim" assistfuice programs. 

ACLU Response 

In previous drafts, these "suggestions" were leQseled 
"recommendations." When several Commissioners objected to such 
strong language, indicating that it read like a "how-to-protest 
manual," the Chairman suggested that to indicate that these were 
simply methods of proceeding for those groups which had already 
decided to do so they should be called "guidelines" or 
"suggestions." As the old proverb goes: "A wink is as good as a 
nod to a dead horse." This is unmistakably a call to arms. The 
whole tenor of these "suggestions" is that they are to be 
utilized as ways to drive out of the community "offensive" 
materials which are non-obscene and thus constitutionally 
protected. As indicated eibove, this generally poses serious 
threats to the concept of free expression. In addition, the 
following suggestions raise specific new problems: 

(5) The citizen groups are here encouraged to be general 
"vice vigilantes," not simply roaming through printed and visual 
materials but alerting the police to "unlawful sexual 
activities." Given the recommendation below for the government 
to stop "indecent" acts in "adults only" stores, this parallel 
could be read to suggest that private citizens seek to uncover 
these acts in their neighbors' bedrooms. 

(7) When "court-watch" programs are closely linked to 
judicial reappointments and elections, there is consider2U3le 



169 



dzmger that the right of defendents to a fair trial could be 
compromised. Obscenity law is technical and complex and what 
occurs in a courtroom may not be readily apparent to the 
occasional observer. Accusations that particular judges are 
"soft" could actually represent voting more sinister than a 
judicial officer's careful adherence to the law and the rights of 
defendants. Judges must do what the law and the Constitution 
require, not what well-intentioned or overzealous citizens 
demand . 

(12) The ACLU objects to the so-called "voluntary agreement" 
between many music companies and the P.M.R.C. regarding record 
labeling. This agreement was reached only after members of a 
Senate committee, several of whom were spouses of the P.M.R.C. 
founders, threatened federal legislation if a "clean-up" of 
lyrics, or other action, did not occur "voluntarily." This was 
as serious an "official" intrusion into private decisions and 
negotiations as the Commission's letter to the 26 "identified 
distributors" of pornography. 

In general, the ACLU does not approve of industry rating 
systems. We are concerned that they stifle creativity and result 
in rigid adherence to industry guidelines, wise or misguided. In 
the recording area, "leOseled" records pose additional civil 
liberties problems. First, "labeled" records become easy 
targets for other citizens groups who can then demand that 
shopping mall stores or other outlets refuse to carry the product 
at all. Second, since renewals of broadcast licenses can still 
be challenged by citizen groups, there is the real concern that 



170 



stations which play "ledseled" (although clearly not obscene or 
even "indecent" materials) will be the targets of groups 
challenging their right to continue broadcasting. The could use 
the argument that other licensees in the market area uphold the 
"pxiblic interest" standard (required in the 1934 Communications 
Act) by not broadcasting from "Izibeled" albums. 



171 

Chairman Miller. Thank you very much. 
The committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to recon- 
vene subject to the call of the Chair.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 



172 



Prepared Statement of James K. Stewart, Director, National Institute of 

Justice 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to have the opportunity to 
review for the Select Committee on Children, Youth and Families 
the National Institute of Justice work on domestic violence. 
Families are the fundamental social unit of American life, and 
policies that support the family are imperative for the health 
and survival of our society. If we are committed to assisting 
families, we must seek out the means to combat the violence that 
arises between spouses in every community in America. As a 
nation, we have only recently begun to take special notice of the 
extent and pervasiveness of this kind of victimization. The 
evidence available is startling. 

o In 1986, family members accounted for over 28% of all 

homicides .where the victim-offender relationship was known; 
Approximately 2300 of these deaths were caused by spouse 
killing spouse; 62 percent of these victims of spousal 
homicide was female. (FBI, 1987) 

o More than 2.3 million violent incidents between spouses or 
ex-spouses were reported to the National Crime Survey 
between 1973 and 1981. Twenty-five percent of these victims 
reported three or more incidents during a six-month period. 
(Klaus and Rand, 1984) 

o Thirty percent of all married couples report at least one 
incident of violent abuse at some time during their 
relationship. Researchers estimate as many as 20 million 



173 



victims of spouse assault among currently married couples. 
(Straus, Gelles, and Steinraetz, 1980) 

o Among those incidents classified as crimes, assaults among 
family members are typically the single most frequent call 
to American police departments. (Scott, 1981) 

The true size of this problem, of course, is not accurately 
known. The social stigma attached to families with abusive 
partners and the fear of repeated or even more violent abuse are 
strong motivations not to report violent incidents to friends of 
family members,, let alone to the police, mental health agencies 
or survey researchers. The best information on spouse abuse 
obtained from a nationally representative survey of currently 
married couples does not include the thirty-five percent of the 
sample that refused to be interviewed. 

Whatever the actual level of violence between spouses, the 
recorded incidents reflect some unknown fraction of a truly 
serious national problem with potentially grave consequences for 
the very future of American society. 



174 



The Police Response 

Law enforcement agencies are usually the first and often the only 
public agency called upon to intervene in violence disputes among 
family members. How the police respond in these situations is 
critical for the immediate needs of the victims and the long-term 
prospects for preventing repeated incidents. In a study of 
family homicides in Kansas City and Detroit, the police had 
previously been called to the scene at least once in 85 percent 
of the cases. In 50 percent of the family homicides the police 
had been called. at least 5 times. These statistics argue that 
the potential for preventing family homicide is great. 

The police response to spouse assault has traditionally been one 
of three approaches: advise the couple, order one of the parties 
out of the house for several hours, or arrest the attacker. 
Advocates of each of these tactics have over the years maintained 
that their approach is more likely to reduce the subsequent 
violence to the victim or at least not precipitate additional 
violence. Until recently, however, there has been no systematic 
evidence to support one approach over another. 

This situation changed dramatically in 1983 when a controlled 
experiment sponsored by the National Institute of Justice 



175 



reported that one police strategy is more effective in reducing 
the amount of repeat violence between spouses. The Minneapolis 
Domestic Violence Experiment found that arrest was the best 
response in misdemeanant assault cases. In response to these 
findings and the subsequent national publicity surrounding them, 
police agencies in several jurisdictions (including Minneapolis, 
New York, and Houston) altered their official policies regarding 
spouse assault. In 1983 only 10 percent of the police 
departments in jurisdictions over 100,00 population had a policy 
favoring arrest; by 198 6, 50 percent of the same departments had 
a pro-arrest policy. 

In addition, legislatures in several states and local 
jurisdictions have revised their laws to encourage the increased 
use of arresting these situations, and the Attorney General's 
Task Force on Family Violence relied heavily on these results in 
its recommendations to the nation that arrest become the 
preferred policy in dealing with domestic violence. 

Working together police and researchers in Minneapolis 
successfully implemented a complex experiment, the results of 
which have had immediate and practical consequences throughout 
the U.S. Research, in this instance, addressed a real need of 
police policy makers. These policy makers were ready and able to 
act when persuasive evidence in favor of one treatment over 



176 



another was made available. This demonstrates once again that 
the relationship between the police and the research community 
can be the highly productive one that the Congress envisioned 
when it created the National Institute of Justice. 

Although the findings from Minnesota are currently the best 
available evidence on how the police should respond to spouse 
assaults, these findings must still be considered tentative until 
additional research (and practical experience) can establish the 
full range of conditions under which the arrest response is most 
effective. The National Institute of Justice is testing the 
effectiveness of arrest for spouse assault in six jurisdictions: 
Omaha, Nebraska; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Colorado Springs, 
Colorado; Charlotte, North Carolina; Atlanta, Georgia; and Dade 
County, Florida. 

Since the publication of the results of the Minneapolis project 
in 1983, the Institute has spent a cumulative total of $1.8 
million on domestic violence. The need for. field work is 
extensive and conducting research in this area is extremely 
expensive, costing nearly $225,000 per replication site. With 
the $1 million allotted for domestic violence in FY 88, studies 
in four-five replication sites will be undertaken. NIJ has made 
a substantial investment in the area of domestic violence, but as 
is the Institute's goal and responsibility, research in this area 



177 



must be sustained. One can see the rapid exhaustion of funds 
with a research project as important as domestic violence. 

These projects are designed to improve our knowledge of how the 
police can effectively handle these situations, and to expand our 
ability to reduce the violence that threatens our most cherished 
institution. This program challenges the police and the research 
communities to devise improved tests of alternative responses to 
spouse assault. The Institute is confident that pursuing this 
line of cooperative research will lead us to a better 
understanding of what the police can do to reduce the amount of 
violence in our homes. 



178 

Hon. Dan Ck)ATs, a Representative in Congress From the State of Indiana, and 

Ranking Minority Member 

Women, Violence and the Law — Minority Fact Sheet 
I. domestic violence 

A. Definition and incidence 

Estimates of the incidence of domestic violence in the U.S. vary widely depending 
upon the definition of domestic violence and the method used to arrive at estimates. 

"Estimates of the level of domestic violence vary depending on how spouse abuse 
is defined. For example, data bases on a definition that includes punching as a form 
of abuse but not pushing will differ from data based on a definition that includes 
both punching and pushing. Because there are many interpretations of domestic vio- 
lence, there is a large gray area ranging from 'normal' fighting to battering that is 
subject to debate." (Shillmoeller, Susan, "Spouse Abuse: Background and Federal 
Programs to Address the Problem," CRS Report, December 10, 1986.) 

There is no consensus on the severity of violence required for an act to be con- 
sidered "abuse." The term "abuse" is a source of considerable difficulty and confu- 
sion because it covers many types of abuse. (Straus, Murray and Gelles, Richard, 
"Societal Change and Change in Family Violence from 1975 to 1985 as Revealed by 
Two National Surveys," Journal of Marriage and the Family, August 1986.) 

Gelles and Cornell found that most researchers view spouse abuse as physical 
abuse, with the intent to cause harm. Also, many researchers agree that the prob- 
lems of spouse abuse are predominantly those of wife abuse. Although some re- 
search suggests that wives may be as violent as husbands, many researchers make 
distinctions between husband abuse and wife abuse, (id.) 

In addition, domestic violence is not usually defined to include only those couples 
who are currently married. 

National Crime Statistics show that in almost %'s of spouse-on-spouse assaults, 
the victim was divorced or separated at the time of the incidents. (Reports to the 
Nation on Crime and Justice, October 1983, pg. 21.) 

Researchers found that almost half of the battered women requesting emergency 
medical assistance in a large metropolitan hospital were divorced or separated from 
the abuser. Based on this finding, they estimate that as many as 2 of the 6 million 
women in the United States who are separated or divorced are at risk for battering. 
When this figure is combined with Straus, Gelles, and Steinmatz' (1980) estimate 
that approximately 1.8 million women living in couples are battered, it can be esti- 
mated that 3 to 4 million women are beaten in their homes each year by their hus- 
bands, ex-husbands, boyfriends, or lover. (Stark, Evan, "Wife Abuse in the Medical 
Setting: An Introduction for Health Personnel," April 1981, page vii) 

In spite of the wide variation in definitions and estimates of incidence of domestic 
violence, certain unambiguous facts make clear the seriousness of the problem and 
the need for an effective response from the justice system. The Attorney General's 
Task Force on Family Violence found: 

Battery is a major cause of injury to women in America. 

Nearly one-third of female homicide victims are killed by their husbands and boy- 
friends. 

Almost 20% of all homicides in the U.S. occur among family members. 

In one city, police had been called at least once before in 85% of spouse assault 
and homicide cases. 

In 50% of these cases the police has responded five times to family violence inci- 
dents prior to the homicide. 

B. The criminal justice system response 

All states have enacted legislation designed to protect battered women. Laws in 
43 states now enable battered women to obtain civil protection orders without initi- 
ating divorce or other civil proceedings, as previously required. Eleven states have 
enacted legislation making spouse abuse a criminal offense separate from other 
types of criminal offenses. Thirty-three states have expanded police power to arrest 
in domestic abuse cases, and 29 states have appropriated funds for services for fami- 
lies suffering from violence. (Lerman, Lisa and Livingston, France, "State Legisla- 
tion on Domestic Violence," September/October 1983.) 

Current research indicates that police should re-evaluate their common practice 
of temporarily separating husbands and wives following a violent incident. A recent 
study conducted by the Police Foundation found that offenders who were asked to 
temporarily leave the residence were 2*72 times more likely to generate another 



179 

police report than offenders who were arrested for their violence. (Sherman, L. and 
Berts, R., "Police Responses to Domestic Assaults: Preliminary Findings," 1983.) 

A survey of 1,793 women in Kentucky, who were married or living with a male 
partner, found that police were called in only 9% of domestic violence incidents. Re- 
searchers conclude that police are notified in less than 1 in 10 cases of spousal vio- 
lence. Incidents involving nonwhite women are more than twice as likely to be re- 
ported to the police as incidents involving white women, 18% to 8%. (Schulman, 
Mark, "A Survey of Spousal Abuse Against Women in Kentucky," U.S. Department 
of Justice, July 1979.) 

Over half (200) of 350 battered women completing a research survey reported that 
the police responded on at least one occasion of battering. Fifty-six percent of these 
women (112) said they asked to have their spouses arrested. In the majority of these 
cases, the officers refused to arrest the assaulter. It is difficult to realize that, out of 
350 survey respondents beaten by their spouses, including 200 cases in which the 
police were involved one or more times, not one claimed that her spouse was arrest- 
ed, tried, found guilty, and sentenced to jail on a charge of assault and battery. (Pa- 
gelow, Mildred, "Double Victimization of Battered Women: Victimized by Spouses 
and the Legal System," November 8, 1980.) 

C Federal efforts 

Because domestic violence is very much a problem of the local community and 
law enforcement agencies, the federal government has been only marginally in- 
volved in responses to it. And, ironically, though shelters for battered women are 
simply a measure of last resort rather than a solution to domestic violence, most 
federal involvement has consisted of funding for shelters. 

Between 1973 and 1982, there were five small Federal programs specifically aimed 
at domestic violence or which provided for support for shelters. These programs 
were abolished by late 1982. Until it was phased out, the Comprehensive Employ- 
ment and Training Act (CETA) was a major source of Federal support for domestic 
violence shelters. (Schillmoeller, Susan, "Spouse Abuse: Background and Federal 
Programs to Address the Problem," CRS Report, December 10, 1986. 

Currently, federal funding for shelters comes through: 

Family Violence Prevention and Services Act of 1984 (title III, P.L. 98-457).— Au- 
thorizes State demonstration grants to provide shelters and related services, author- 
izes training and technical assistance grants for law enforcement agencies, and es- 
tablishes a National Clearinghouse on Family Violence Prevention. Authorizes $11 
million for FY85 and $26 million for each of FY86 and FY87. 

Community services block grant. — Administered by the Office of Community Serv- 
ices within DHHS, provides funds to States for antipoverty activities. Of the 37 
States that provided data to the National Association of State Community Services 
Programs survey regarding FY84, the NASCSP found that $19.1 million, or 14.2 per- 
cent of the total CSBG expenditures for the 37 States, was used for emergency serv- 
ices. Emergency services include domestic violence and other crisis intervention 
services, but also covers assistance unrelated to domestic violence. 

Community development block grant. — Administered by HUD, the CDBG provides 
grants to States and communities for a wide variety of community and economic 
development activities. A shelter may apply for funds to acquire property, or to ac- 
quire or rehabilitate housing. CDBG funds may also be used for the provision of 
counseling services to abused spouses. According to HUD, 1980 was the last year for 
which it had information on how CDBG supports shelters. Through FY 1980, 521 
shelters used CDBG funds to acquire buildings, for a total of about $3.56 million. In 
FY87, $3.0 billion was appropriated for CDBG for all uses under P.L. 99-500. 

Social services block grant.— The SSBG (title XX of the Social Security Act) au- 
thorizes block grants to States for a variety of social services. States determine what 
services they will provide and who will be eligible for services. States receive funds 
on the basis of the State's population. There are no State matching requirements. 

Victims of Crime Act of 1984. — Authorizes a crime victims fund to compensate 
and assist victims. The fund is made up of fines collected from persons convicted of 
certain Federal offenses. Up to $110 million from this fund is to be used for awards 
to, among other things, crime victim assistance programs. Priority for crime victim 
assistance awards is to be given to those programs providing assistance to victims of 
sexual assault, spouse abuse, or child abuse. Eligible services provided by crime 
victim assistance programs are crisis intervention services, including a telephone 
hotline; temporary shelter and other emergency services; support services, including 
follow-up counseling; court-related services, including transportation, child care and 
escort services; and payment for forensic medical exams. 



180 

D. Recommendations of the Attorney General's Task Force on Family Violence 

In September of 1984, the Attorney General's Task Force on Family Violence con- 
cluded its extensive study with recommendations for every level of government and 
some non-government entities. Most prominent were its recommendations for the 
criminal justice system. Those most pertinent to this hearing are as follows: 

Recommendations for the justice system 

1. Family violence should be recognized and responded to as a criminal activity. 

2. Law enforcement officials, prosecutors, and judges should develop a coordinated 
response to family violence. 

3. Communities should develop a multi-diciplinary team to investigate, process 
and treat all incidents of family violence, especially cases of physical and sexual 
abuse of children. 

Recommendations for law enforcement 

1. All law enforcement agencies should publish operational procedures that estab- 
lish family violence as a priority response and require officers to file written reports 
on all incidents. 

2. Consistent with state law, the chief executive of every law enforcement agency 
should establish arrest as the preferred response in cases of family violence. 

3. Law enforcement officials should maintain a current file of all protection orders 
valid in their jurisdiction. 

4. Law enforcement officers should respond without delay to calls involving viola- 
tions of protecting orders. 

5. Forms for obtaining protection orders should be available at all police stations 
and sheriffs' offices. 

6. When responding to disturbance calls, law enforcement officers should docu- 
ment violations of pre-trial release conditions. The report should verify the facts 
and circumstances necessary for the prosecutor to request revocation of the release. 

Recommendations for prosecutors 

1. Prosecutors should organize special units to process family violence cases and 
wherever possible should use vertical prosecution. 

2. The victim should not be required to sign a formal complaint against the 
abuser before the prosecutor files charges, unless mandated by state law. 

3. Whenever possible, prosecutors should not require family violence victims to 
testify at the preliminary hearing. 

4. If the defendant does not remain in custody and when it is consistent with the 
needs of the victim, the prosecutor should request the judge to issue an order re- 
stricting the defendant's access to the victim as a condition of setting bail or releas- 
ing the assailant on his own recognizance. If the condition is violated, swift and sure 
enforcement of the order and revocation of release are required. 

Recommendations for judges 

1. A wide range of dispositional alternatives should be considered in cases of 
family violence. In all cases, prior sentencing, judges should carefully review and 
consider the consequences of the crime on the victim. 

2. Protection orders should be available on an emergency basis in family violence 
cases. 

3. Judges should establish guidelines for expeditious handling of family violence 
cases. 

4. Judges should admit hearsay statements of family. 

5. Expert witnesses should be allowed to testify in family violence cases to famil- 
iarize the judge and jury with the dynamics of violence within the family. 

6. In granting bail or releasing the assailant on his own recognizance, the judge 
should impose conditions that restrict the defendant's access to the victim and 
strictly enforce the order. 

Recommendations for State legislative action 

1. States should enact laws to extend the statute of limitations in criminal cases 
of child sexual assault. 

2. States should enact laws to permit law enforcement officers to make warrant- 
less arrests for misdemeanor offenses involving family violence when the officer has 
probable cause to believe a crime has occurred and the safety of the family is in 
jeopardy. 

3. States should enact legislation making the violation of a protection order issued 
in a family violence case a criminal offense. 



181 

4. States should enact legislation that permits overnight incarceration of persons 
arrested for incidents of family violence in appropriate cases. 

5. States should enact legislation to enable businesses and organizations to have 
access to sexual assault, child molestation or pornography arrest on conviction 
records of job applicants whose work will bring them in regular contact with chil- 
dren. 

6. States should enact laws to require professionals currently required to report 
child abuse, to report elder abuse. 

7. States should enact laws that allow victim compensation to be paid to victims of 
family violence. 

Recommendation for pornography 

1. The Task Force endorses the creation of the National Commission on Pornogra- 
phy. 

II. PORNOGRAPHY 

A. Presidential Commissions on Pornography 

The 1970 Presidential Commission on Obscenity and Pornography. — In 1970 the 
Johnson administration appwinted this Commission to look into the subject of por- 
nography. There is considerable controversy surrounding this Commission, some 
sajang that it consisted of "liberals", and the two most prominent researchers at the 
time where not included. Many of the studies were rushed to completion, including 
the widely cited "Danish Studies" which alleged that there had been a reduction in 
sex crimes in Denmark with the legalization of pornography in 1967. This study was 
later refuted. ("Family Policy Insights," Free Congress Foundation, 1985.) 

The Commission concluded that pornography was harmless and even had thera- 
peutic and cathartic value, nad no negative effects on adults or children, was not a 
social problem, and its production and distribution should be free of regulation. The 
Report advocated the use of pornography as a way to inhibit and help rehabilitate 
sex offenders, who after viewing the material would supposedly experience and emo- 
tional "catharsis" which would deter them from committing later offenses, (id.) 

The Commission Report was rejected by the Senate with a vote of 60-5, and by 
President Nixon. Elven so, sympathetic media reports caused widespread acceptance 
of the Report by the public. This gave virtually free reign to producers, program- 
mers, and advertisers of pornographic materials, and as a result there has been a 
tremendous increase in these materials in the last 10 to 20 years, (id.) 

The Attorney General's Commission on Pornography. — The Meese Commission in 
1986 came out with a report which came to very different conclusions. The Commis- 
sion did not accept the 1970 conclusion that pornography had no negative effects. 
The "catharsis" model was also not accepted. In fact, the Commission found the con- 
trary to be the case. There was a high correlation between acceptance of the "rape 
myth" and sexual violence in pornography. Moreover, the (Commission found that 
sexually violent pornography increases the likelihood of adverse attitudinal 
changes. Nonviolent pornography had less clear an impact, but similar trends are 
seen, esj)ecially with degrading themes. (Report of the Attorney General's Commis- 
sion on Pornography, 1986.) 

B. Violent pornography and violence against women 

Several studies have been conducted regarding the effects of violent pornography 
(includes violent erotica, sadomasochistic themes, bestiality, and portrayals of rape, 
especially portrayals where the female victim becomes involuntarily sexually 
aroused or otherwise responds positively to sexual aggression). The results of a 
study conducted by Neal Malamuth at the University of Manitoba indicated that 
exposure to the films p)ortraying violent sexuality significantly increased male sub- 
jects' acceptance of interpersonal violence against women. Malamuth concluded that 
(1) these materials stimulate and arouse aggressive and sexual feelings — especially 
in males; (2) these materials show or instruct in detail how to do the acts — much of 
it anti-social; (3) they have a desensitization effect which reduces feelings of con- 
science, guilt, inhibitions, or inner controls — the act is legitimized by repetition; and 
(4) there is increased likelihood that the individual will act out what he has wit- 
nessed. (Cline, Victor, "Aggression Against Women: The Facilitating Effects of 
Media Violence and Erotica," 1983.) 

In another study, Drs. Eklward Donnerstein and Neil Malamuth found that expo- 
sure to these materials causes six results: 

(1) it sexually excites and arouses the male viewer; 

(2) it increases both his aggressive attitudes and behavior; 

(3) it stimulates the production of aggressive rape fantasies; 



182 

(4) it increases men's acceptance of so called rape myths (such as women ask for 
it); 

(5) it produces a lessened sensitivity and increased callousness about rape; 

(6) it leads to men admitting an increased possibility of themselves raping some- 
one — especially if they think they can get away with it. (id.) 

C. Nonviolent pornography and violence against women 

The effects of nonviolent pornography (includes fellatio, cunnilingus, coition, anal 
intercourse, and multiple partnership) are more disputed. According to Dr. Dolf Zill- 
man, soft-core porn is a serious problem also, leading to increasing callousness to- 
wards women, and to trivialization of rape as a criminal offense. Zillman and Dr. 
Jennings Bryant found that many people do not stop with the more conventional, 
non-violent pornography. After a time, boredom sets in, and they are more likely to 
shift to violent and bizarre kinds. Zillman and Bryant also believe that exposure to 
pornography make viewers more tolerant of such moral transgressions as adultery, 
and less satisfied with their current sexual relationships. (Donnelly, Harrison, "Por- 
nography: Setting New Limits," Editorial Research Reports, May 1986.) 

"Subjects, in fact, reported becoming dissatisfied with the pornographic material 
they had become familiar with. To recreate their earlier state of sexual arousal, 
they developed an appetite for material featuring less common sexual behavior. 
Massive exposure to nonviolent, noncoercive standard-fare pornography created an 
appetitive for more unusual, bizarre and deviant materials, including violence in a 
sexual context — such as depiction of sadomasochism and rape." ("Pornography and 
its Effects on Family, Community, and Culture," Family Policy Insights, Free Con- 
gress Foundation, 1985.) 

In a 1982 study of nonviolent pornography, Zillman had the following results: 

Students in the study perceived the use of particular sexual practices to be more 
pronounced than did students who had viewed less or no pornography; visions of 
hypersexuality seemed to be created. 

"The popuL.rity of unusual sexual practices was in fact grossly overestimated. 
Massive exposure to pornography consequently might be said to distort the percep- 
tion of many aspects of sexuality by fostering the lasting impression that relatively 
uncommon sexual practices are more common than they actually are. Interestingly, 
this perceptual shift from uncommon to common is the result of massive exposure 
to erotica featuring rather common practices. It can only be speculated, at this 
point, that massive exposure to materials exhibiting sadomasochism and bestiality 
would have produced an even stronger distortion in the perception of the popularity 
of these behaviors." 

Pornography was considered less offensive and objectionable by those who had 
been most exposed by it. 

Concern about the ill effects of pornography was diminished by repeated expo- 
sure. 

Dispositions toward rape, as measured by the incarceration recommendations for 
rapists, resulted in significantly shorter terms of imprisonment. Exposure to pornog- 
raphy made rape appear a trivial offense. 

There was a loss of compassion for women as rape victims. 

Men's sexual callousness towards women was significantly increased. 

Dr. Zillman asserts that there are further consequences that would occur outside 
the laboratory: 

"... the findings are suggestive of further anti-social consequences. It can be ex- 
trapolated from the data on perceptual changes, for instance, that those massively 
exposed to pornography will become distrusting of their partners in extended rela- 
tionships. If women were thought to be as socially non-discriminating and'as hyster- 
ical about any type of sexual stimulation as pornography makes them appear, men 
massively exposed to pornography might come to fear being cheated on and to 
invest less in a relationship than men who had viewed less pornography. Needless 
to say, as distrust grows and caring diminishes, it is the thing called "love" that is 
being undermined." (Zillman, D. and Bryant, J., "Pornography, Sexual Callousness, 
and the Trivialization of Rape," Journal of Communication, Autumn 1982.) 

D. Pornography and violence 

"Seven out of a group of eighteen rapists studied who used "consenting" pornog- 
raphy to instigate a sexual offense, said that it provided a cue to elicit fantasies of 
forced sex. Similarly, ten of the eighteen who currently used "consenting" sex stim- 
uli, used it to elicit rape fantasies." ("Pornography and its Effect on Family, Com- 
munity and Culture," Family Policy Insights, Free Congress Foundation, 1985.) 

Recent studies of habitual sex-offenders by Dr. William Marshall have shown that 
both rapists and heterosexual pedophiles use the different types of pornography that 



183 

they collect for specific ritualized sex practices. In Dr. Marshall's most recent study, 
almost Vz of the rapists interviewed used so-called "soft-core" consenting sex pornog- 
raphy to arouse themselves in preparation for seeking out a victim. 86% of the rap- 
ists studied by Marshall currently use pornography, (id.) 

Rapists display greater sexual arousal to forced sex scenarios than normal males, 
(id.) 

"Sex-offenders and potential sex-offenders understand and interpret media por- 
trayals of sexual psychopathology which is not punish, which is positively rein- 
forced, and which is occasionally glorified — to convey a tolerance of these actual be- 
haviors by society . . . sex-offenders claim society has betrayed them, when with 
one hand, it offers them a smorgasbord of these legitimizing images, and then with 
the other, punishes them when they act out the behaviors portrayed and depicted." 
(id.) 

Police nationwide routinely report finding substantial pornography collections in 
the homes of virtually every pedophile, and virtually every serial and mass-killer 
that they apprehend and arrest, (id.) 

In a recent FBI study of thirty-six serial-killers' sexual acts and interests, 29 rated 
pornography the highest, and incorporated it into their sexual activity, which in- 
cluded serial rape-murder. (Burgess, A., "Effect of Pornography on Women and Chil- 
dren," testimony before the Subcommittee on Juvenile Justice, Committee on the 
Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, 1984.) 

Studies in Cleveland, Phoenix, and Los Angeles have verified that sex crimes are 
higher in those areas of a city where hard-core pornography is marketed. Statistics 
kept by the Michigan State Police prove that in at least 41% of sex crimes, pornog- 
raphy is used or imitated just prior to or during the violent acts. (Citizens for Decen- 
cy through Law, Inc., "Effect of the Pornography Industry on the American Family 
and the Sexual Exploitation of Children," Memo to the Attorney General's Task 
Force on Family Violence, February 1984.) 

E. Effects on male/female relationships and marriage 

Zillman and Bryant have both found that massive exposure to soft-core or nonvio- 
lent pornography leads to sexual dissatisfaction in both men and women. Men and 
women, expecially men, tend to compare their partner's performance to the sexual 
behavior portrayed in pornographic materials. These people often become dissatis- 
fied with the sexual performance, and even physical appearance of their partners. 
They also begin to devalue their partners in much the same way that they had the 
victims of rape in the laboratory. One reason is that the females portrayed in por- 
nography are shown engaging in sexual behaviors which women generally do not 
want to, or will not engage in. ("Pornography and its Effects on Family, Community 
and Culture," Family Policy Insights, Free Congress Foundation, 1985.) 

Sexual reality tends to fall short of depictions in pornography where socially non- 
discrimination females encourage and solicit the specific sexual behaviors that are 
dear to men but not necessarily to women. 

"Men may well feel cheated and accuse perfectly sensitive women of frigidity. 
Lacking corrective information, women might actually come to doubt their own 
sexual sensitivities. Regarding untried activities, pornography again projects eupho- 
ria where it might not exist — at least not for many. That pornography thus entices 
actions, and that the resultant experimentation leads to less than satisfactory re- 
sults, can hardly be doubted. (Zillman, D. and Bryant, J., "Pornography, Sexual Cal- 
lousness, and the Trivialization of Rape," Journal of Communication, Autumn 1982.) 

In her book "Rape and Marriage," Diana Russell states that the "rape myth type 
of pornography was a significant element in reducing inhibitions to the use of vio- 
lence in marital relationships, habituating both males and females to the idea of 
rape, and to the acceptance of sexual deviance as normal behavior. Repeated expo- 
sure to rape mjdh imagery contributed significantly to her subjects' reports of dis- 
satisfaction in their sexual relationships with their spouses." ("Pornography and its 
Effects on Family, (Community and Culture," Family Policy Insights, Free Congress 
Foundation, 1985.) 

F. Pornography and the law 

Congress has limited authority under the Ck)nstitution to legislate on obscenity. 
Legislative powers are reserved to the individual states, and most states have dele- 
gated some of this authority to lower governmental bodies such as countries and 
municipalities. However, there are two areas where the federal government has ju- 
risdiction: (1) Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign Nations 
and among States, and (2) the establishment of "Post Offices and Post Roads" serves 
as the basis for prohibitions in the federal criminal code such as mailing obscene or 
crime-inciting matter, importation or transportation of obscene matter, mailing in- 



184 

decent matter in wrappers or envelopes, broadcasting indecent, profane or obscene 
language, and transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution. (Reimer, 
Rita, "Legal Analysis of the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography's Final 
Report," CRS Report, July 1986.) 

In addition, the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 added violations of var- 
ious state and federal obscenity statutes to the listing of offenses encompassed by 
the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) law. This law 
imposes criminal penalties on those who acquire or conduct an "enterprise" engaged 
in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce through a "pattern of racketeer activ- 
ity." This now includes all state and federal obscenity violations which carry a max- 
imum sentence of at least one year's imprisonment, (id.) 

The main criticism of the Meese Commission and of others is not the lack of laws, 
too-permissive statutes, but rather the lack of enforcement. For example, as of the 
duties when testimony was presented to the Commission, the cities of Miami, Flori- 
da, and Buffalo, New York and only one police officer each assigned to enforcement 
of obscenity laws. Chicago had two officers and Los Angeles had fewer than ten. 
From January 1, 1978 to February 27, 1986, a total of only 100 people were indicted 
for violations of federal obscenity laws. 71 were convicted. Thus, the Commission felt 
that stricter enforcement and strengthening of the present laws should be made a 
top priority, (id.) 

III. RAPE 

A. Statistics and key facts 

Rape and attempted rape account for about 3% of all violent crimes. In 1983 an 
estimated 154,000 rapes and attempted rapes occurred, or roughly 1 for every 600 
females 12 years of age and over (""The Crime of Rape," Bureau of Justice Statistics 
Bulletin, U.S. Department of Justice, 1985.) 

The National Crime Survey estimates that during the 10-year period, 1973-82, 
there were about 1.5 million rapes or attempted rapes in the United States. This 
figure drastically understates the incidence of this crime. 

Two-thirds of all rapes and rape attempts occur at night, with the largest propor- 
tion occurring between 6 p.m. and midnight. A third of the completed rapes oc- 
curred in the home. Only a fourth of the attempted rapes occurred in the home 
while over half the rest occurred on the street or in a park, field, playground, park- 
ing lot, or parking garage, (id.) 

The highest victimization rates for rape and attempted rape were 16 to 24 year 
olds. Most victims of rape or attempted rape are white due to the racial composition 
of the general population. The likelihood of being a rape victim is significantly 
higher for black women than for white women. Victims are usually members of low- 
income families, (id.) 

Assault by a total stranger is the most common. A woman is twice as likely to be 
attacked by a stranger as by someone she knows. More than three-fourths of all 
rapes involve one victim and one offender, (id.) 

The offenders are likely to be the same race as their victims (70% of the time for 
white victims involving one offender and 89% for black victims involving one of- 
fender), (id.) 

Most offenders are unarmed. Weapons were used in only 25% of the rapes and 
rape attempts, (id.) 

In cases where the victim used some form of resistance, injury was somewhat 
more likely (57%) than in cases where she did not (47%). (id.) 

There are at least one hundred times as many cases of actual rape which are not 
reported each year as there are false reports of rape. ("Rape and Women's Credibil- 
ity," Harvard Women's Law Journal, Spring 1987.) 

B. Characteristics of sex offenders 

Sexual assaults of the offenders appeared to replicate their childhood victimiza- 
tion. Approximately 33% of the offenders who participated in a study conducted by 
Nicholas Groth had been sexually victimized as children. (Garrison, Jean, "Research 
on Rapists," National Center for the Prevention and Control of Rape, Center for 
Women Policy Studies, 1983.) 

According to researchers Nicholas Groth and Jean Birnbaum, rapists are catego- 
rized into three categories: (1) the "power rapist" uses rape as an opportunity to 
assert his dominance and sexual prowess. He generally plans the rape and engages 
in an elaborate fantasy in which the victim is finally overcome with passion; (2) the 
"anger rapist" does not plan the attack beforehand and is generally much more vio- 
lent. The "anger rapist" may often be displacing anger toward women in general, or 
toward a particular woman, onto the victim; (3) the "sadistic rapist" often mutilates 



185 

or kills his victim. Such a man finds satisfaction or pleasure in abusing, degrading, 
humiliating, and sometimes destrojdng his victim, (id.) 

C. Legal issues 

Force and consent 

Force and/or lack of consent is an essential element of the crime of rape. Each 
state defines force and lack of consent in similar ways, each requiring either — 
actual use of physical force; the immediate threat of bodily harm or death; the 
threat of kidnapping the victim or any other person; the threat to retaliate in the 
future against the victim or any other person; and a combination of the above. 

Also, in a number of jurisdictions the victim does not give his/her consent when 
(1) the perpetrator through surprise or concealment is able to overcome the victim, 
or (2) where the victim is mentally incapacitated, or (3) where the victim is unaware 
sexual intercourse is occurring, or (4) where the perpetrator had administered a sub- 
stance which impairs the victim's ability to control his/her conduct, or (5) where the 
victim submits because he/she erroneously believes that the perpetrator is his/her 
spouse, (id.) 

Admissible and inadmissible evidence 
A majority of states have enacted statutes which make inadmissible, with certain 
exceptions, evidence of the victim's prior sexual conduct on the issue of consent. 
However, some state statutes allow evidence of the victim's prior sexual conduct to 
be used at trial to test the victim's credibility, but only on cross examination. These 
provisions are known as "rape shield statutes" because their purpose is three-fold: 
(1) to protect the victim from harassment and humiliation at trial, (2) to encourage 
the victims of rape to report and prosecute sex offenses, and (3) to prevent time con- 
suming and distracting inquiry into collateral matters at trial, (id.) 

Marital rape 

Black's Law Dictionary defines rape as, "The act of sexual intercourse committed 
by a man with a woman not his wife and without her consent, committed when the 
woman's resistance is overcome by force or fear, or under other prohibitive condi- 
tions." 

Current state laws vary widely in the extent to which they protect spouses from 
nonconsensual sexual activities at the hands of their mates. A majority of states 
have a statutory provision which provides spousal immunity to the husband. But in 
a number of these states this spousal immunity is eliminated when the couple is (1) 
living apart, (2) has filed for divorce, (3) has filed for separate maintenance, or (4) 
has filed for a legal separation. A small number of states provide a statutory provi- 
sion which totally abolishes spousal immunity. States which maintain spousal im- 
munity do so due to the difficulty of proving the marital rape offense and the possi- 
bility of fabricated complaints. (Sooy, Kathleen, "Rape Reform Legislation: State 
and Federal Law," CRS Report, August 1983.) 

Spousal immunity to prosecution for rape does not protect a man from prosecu- 
tion for other physical violence used to force intercourse without her consent. Nor, 
in most cases, does spousal immunity cover any act other than normal vaginal 
intercourse. 

The Sexual Assault Act, passed by Congress in 1986, amended the U.S. Criminal 
Code by establishing gradations of "sexual assault" and eliminating the term 
"rape." As part of this process, the spousal immunity for rape was also eliminated 
from the federal code. 

The civil suit 
Increasingly the civil suit has been utilized by victims because they were not get- 
ting results through the criminal justice system. A civil suit may be an effective 
way for victims to recover damages from their assailants or from those individuals 
and institutions who may be held accountable for their safety. In a civil suit a 
woman can achieve two important goals that are not available to her in the crimi- 
nal courts. She can receive restitution for her own injury and she can achieve con- 
trol over her own life by initiating a legal action in which she is the plaintiff Pres- 
ently, rape victims are suing not only their assailants but a variety of third parties, 
and third-party liability is being recognized by the civil courts. Third parties have 
included apartment owners and manager, institutions including schools, universi- 
ties, hospitals, and prisons, buses and subways, and public and government facili- 
ties, and have been sued for improper security of the facility, inadequate lighting, 
locks, supervision, and other forms of security. ("The Civil Suit: An Alternative for 
Rape Victims," Response, Center for Women Policy Studies, August, 1983.) 



186 

D. Attitudes and problems of the criminal justice system 

"Roughly one-half of the rape reports women brought to the Philadelphia police 
in the mid-1970's were not treated as rape cases: only 53.8% were listed as rape 
complaints in the statistics the police sent to the FBI. This is just one indication 
that there is a pervasive belief within the criminal justice system, despite the lack 
of support in evidence, that many "rapes" are merely false accusations . . . Reform 
of rape laws will not improve the system's handling of these cases as long as this 
attitude permeates the criminal justice system — and all indicators show that it 
does." ("Rape and Women's Credibility," Harvard Women's Law Journal, Spring 
1987.) 

"A mid-1970's study observed that two of the most significant reasons for a 
woman's decision to not pursue cases against her attacker are to avoid the ordeal of 
pressing charges and a feeling that the man's denial, rather than her accusation, 
would ultimately be believed." (id.) 

Police may take four actions when they do not believe a rape victim's story: (1) 
they may "lose" or otherwise not record the rape report; (2) police may record the 
incident as a noncriminal "non-offense charge" such as "suspicious circumstances;" 
(3) they may label the incident as a less serious charge, such as assault or indecent 
exposure; (4) they may mark the case "unfounded," which is supposed to be done 
only after an investigation shows that no offense occurred or was attempted — rape 
reports are, however, sometimes listed as unfounded without any investigation, (id.) 

"Police have been accused of marking cases as unfounded when they simply do 
not like the individual woman or group to which she belongs. The Philadelphia 
study suggests that poor women, women of color, prostitutes, and those dependent 
on alcohol or drugs are more likely to have their cases ignored by the police, (id.) 

"Overweight women also encounter substantial prejudice and hostility when re- 
porting rape. Police in Philadelphia often did not believe obese women when they 
reported being raped; two out of every three obese victims had their rape complaints 
classified as unfounded, (id.) 

The concept of "victim precipitation" also contributes to disregard of rape reports. 
Victim participation assumes that the victim was in some way responsible for or 
contributed to the incident by (1) aggreeing to sexual relations but then withdraw- 
ing consent; (2) not reacting strongly enough against the offender; (3) using what 
could be interpreted as indecency in language and gestures or what could be taken 
as an invitation to sexual relations. This reflects a view of woman as seductress and 
has been used to excuse men from responsibility for rape and sexual aggressiveness 
towards women, (id.) 



BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 



3 9999 01074 337 3 




District attorney of kings County 

Municipal Building 
Brooklyn, ny. i izot 

(718) 802-2000 



Elizabeth Holtzman 
DisTWCT Attorney 



December 21, 1987 



Select Coianittee on Children, 

Youth, find Families 
385 House Office Building Annex #2 
Washington, D.C. 20515 



District Attorney Elizabeth Holtzman recently 
testified before the House Select Committee on "Women, 
Violence, and the Law." During her testimony, she 
referred to the large percentage of males 11 to 20 who 
kill the men who abuse their mother. This statistic 
originally came from a fact sheet provided by the 
Family Violence Project in San Francisco. Subsequent 
research indicates that the statistic is no longer con- 
sid 



of 



Boston Public Library 



COPLEY 
GENERAL 




The Date Due Card in the pocket in- 
dicates the date on or before which 
this book should be returned to the 
Library. 

Please do not remove cards from this 
pocket 



\